Writ Appeal No.642 of 2011 15.12.2011 Shri C.S.Ujjainiya, learned panel lawyer for the appellants. Heard on I.A.No.4933/11 an application for condonation of delay of 1124 days in filing this intra Court appeal as also on the question of admission. Although we find that in the application seeking condonation of delay, the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, however in order to ascertain the fact that as to whether there is any merit in this appeal we have heard and examined the matter on merits also. Briefly stated this intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.4844/2006 (s). The learned Single Judge on 15.09.2008 passed following order :- “The present petition has been filed by the wife of the deceased petitioner Bharatsingh to give pensionery benefits according to the judgment passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.229/94, decided on 25.07.1998, Annexure P-8 to the petition. The petitioner submits that even though the deceased employee had not passed the Middle School Examination, yet he is entitled to the benefit of the pension as also the judgment passed by the Tribunal as aforesaid. The deceased employee initially was employed as a group secretary and subsequently the said post was abolished and it was directed that all erst-while group secretaries shall be merged on the post of Gram Sahayak. The question of counting, the qualifying service of such erst-while group secretaries has been considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal in paras 10 and 11 of the judgment held as under :- “10. It is also admitted that the applicant fulfills all other conditions of his appointment order except the condition No.1, which the respondents have opted not to implement. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it could safely be inferred from the perusal of the appointment order dated 1.2.1982 Ann.P/2) that the applicant continued as Gram Sahayak appointed temporarily on a substantive post. It is obvious from the perusal of the appointment order itself that vide memo dated 25.1.1982, in Madhya Bharat and Bhopal region, 2100 posts of Gram Sahayaks were created and the applicant was appointed against any one of them. 11. According to Rule 12 (2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, 'qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes the charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity'. The applicant has, thus, completed the qualifying service from the date of his appointment as 'Gram Sahayak' temporarily, to the date of his retirement and thus, entitled for pension.” In the present case though the deceased employee has not passed the Middle School Examination, but the employee continued to work till his retirement as Gram Sahayak in pursuance of the order of his posting Annexure P/1 to the petition. The similar matter has been considered by the Tribunal in paras 10 and 11, referred to above. The respondents in their communication Annexure P/6 have directed that since the deceased employee has not passed the Middle School Examination, therefore, he is entitle to get the benefit. As I have already pointed out earlier that the State Administrative Tribunal has already considered the cases of such encumbants those who are similarly place “Gram Sahayaks” and did not pass the Middle School Examination and it is held that such persons are also entitled for the pensionery benefits. In view of the aforesaid material, it is directed that the case of the deceased employee for giving benefit of judgment dated 25.07.98 passed by the State Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.229/98 be considered by the respondents. The petitioner shall submit a fresh representation to the respondents along with the certified copy of this order and thereafter, the respondents within three months shall pass a speaking order in the light of the judgment passed by the Tribunal. In case the respondents find that the deceased employee was/is entitled to the benefit then pensionery benefits shall also be given to the legal heirs/present petitioner within four months from the date of his retirement along with interest @ 6% P.A. And arrears from the date of entitlement. The petition is allowed to the extent above.” The aforesaid order makes it clear that the learned Single Judge after considering the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) in the cases of similarly placed employee had directed the appellants herein to consider the petitioner's representation and to pass a speaking order in the light of the judgment passed by the Tribunal. When the aforesaid order was not complied with, the respondent (wife of deceased employee) filed a contempt petition before this Court. The said Contempt Petition No.703/10 was disposed of on 13.12.2010 in following manner taking note of the fact that necessary orders for releasing of the claim of the deceased employee was already passed by the State Government :- “This is a contempt petition for non-compliance of order dated 15.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.4844/06 (s). Learned counsel for the respondents submit that necessary orders have been passed for releasing of the claim on 13.12.10. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the same, but submits that no benefit has yet been received. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is disposed of with a short direction to the respondents to see that the benefits reaches to the petitioner within a period of four weeks positively without fail under intimation to the Registry of this Court. In case of default, respondents shall be liable to pay interest on the amount for which petitioner is entitled under the orders of this Court @ 7.5% P.A. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.” It has been contended by learned panel lawyer appearing for appellants that though an order of compliance mentioned in contempt petition was passed on 13.12.2010 to release the claim of the respondent but that will not preclude the appellants to challenge the aforesaid order dated 15.09.2008 passed in W.P.No.4844/2006 (s). He however could not dispute that in similar circumstances number of writ appeals have been recently dismissed by this Court on 13.12.2011 including Writ Appeal No.609/20011 (Director The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dhulichand Soni and 2 others). While deciding the said writ appeal the distinction tried to be drawn about educational qualification has been dealt with and taking note of the fact that the absorption order passed on 31.01.1982 was never cancelled and the employees were allowed to retire without there being cancellation of the absorption order. Having regard to aforesaid fact about dismissal of writ appeals on identical issue, we find absolutely no ground to take a different view and interfere into the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, on the ground of limitation as also on merits, the writ appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge AM.