--- 1 --- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE S.B.: HON'BLE MR. S. C. SHARMA, J WRIT PETITION NO. 3772 / 2010 Dr. P. N. DUBEY Vs. STATE OF M.P. & 3 OTHERS * * * * * O R D E R ( 11/11/2011) The petitioner before this Court, a retired Doctor, has filed this present writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to grant non practising allowance by virtue of executive instructions issued by the State Government vide Circular dt. 10/3/1997. The contention of the petitioner is that he was serving as a Specialist (Anaesthesia) at District Hospital, Indore and has attained the age of superannuation on 31/7/1997. Petitioner has further stated that while he was in service, an order was issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh dt. 10/3/97 granting non practising allowance to Doctors who were not carrying out any private practice and the petitioner as he was not --- 2 --- carrying out any private practise, submitted an application for grant of non practising allowance. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not granted him non practising allowance and the same is resulting in financial loss to the petitioner. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the State Government is that vide executive instructions dt. 10/3/97 non practising allowance was granted to the Doctors who were not practising privately, however, the aforesaid Circular was withdrawn by issuing another circular dt. 13/1/99. The respondents in para 1 of the return have stated that Circular dt. 13/1/99 was made applicable with retrospective effect ie., w.e.f. 10/3/97 and therefore as the benefit of non practising allowance was withdrawn w.e.f. 10/3/97, the question of granting the same to the petitioner, does not arise. Heard the learned counsel counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of at motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties. --- 3 --- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation as Anaesthesia Specialist from Distt. Hospital, Indore on 31/7/97. It is also an admitted fact that the State of Madhya Pradesh has issued executive instructions dt. 10/3/97 granting non practising allowance to Doctors and the petitioner was covered under the aforesaid executive instructions dt. 10/3/97. This Court has carefully gone through the subsequent executive instructions notified by the State Government dt. 11/1/99. Clause 6 of the aforesaid instructions categorically states that they are applicable with effect from the date of issuance, meaning thereby, applicable w.e.f. 11/1/99, thus it is evident, that the respondents have made an incorrect statement in the return in paragraph 1 (c), on Affidavit. In the present case, as the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 1/8/97, his case is covered under the executive instructions issued by the State Government dt. 10/3/97 and therefore he is entitled for grant of non practising allowance. The respondents are therefore directed --- 4 --- to grant non practising allowance and to revise the pay as well as pension of the petitioner within 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled for arrears of non practising allowance as well as arrears of pension and revised pension in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed with a cost of Rs.2,000/-. Certified Copy, as per Rules. (S. C. SHARMA) J U D G E KR