State Of M P And Ors vs Hitkishore Goswami

3. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State (appellant herein) and upheld the order of the Writ Court (learned Single Judge) which allowed the respondent's writ petition by issuing directions in the nature of mandamus against the appellant (State) in relation to respondent's pension case.

5. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention, which are taken from the list of dates and the pleadings of the parties infra.

6. The respondent was appointed as Lecturer (Botany) on 02.07.1963 in the School Education Department of the State. He was posted in the Government Higher Secondary School at Kannod, District Dewas and later transferred to another Government Higher Secondary School at Agar (Malba).

7. In the year 1965, the respondent applied for the post of Lecturer in the Government Degree College, Narsinghgarh pursuant to the advertisement issued by the M.P. Public Service Commission (for short MPSC). The respondent was selected for the said post. He, therefore, tendered his resignation in December, 1965 from the post of lecturer to enable him to join the new service. The respondent's resignation was accepted.

8. The respondent, accordingly, on 03.01.1966 joined on the post of Lecturer in the Government Degree College, Narsinghgarh and worked till 30.04.1976. He was then sent on deputation as Reader on selection at Barkatulla University, Bhopal. The respondent continued to work there when his services were absorbed permanently on 29.08.1979 with effect from 01.05.1978. The respondent attained the age of superannuation and, accordingly, retired from the services on 31.5.2004.

9. The respondent then applied for assessing his pension and payment of gratuity (annexure-P-1) to the concerned authorities. In Column No. 7 of the Form, he mentioned the date of beginning of his service as "3rd January 1966". However, later, the respondent joined an issue with the State that while calculating his pensionery benefits, the past period of his services, which he rendered as lecturer in the government schools from "02.07.1963 to 02.01.1966", should also be counted. The State did not accept the prayer made by the respondent.

11. The State contested the respondent's writ petition on two grounds. In the first place it was contended that the claim made by the respondent is inordinately delayed and hence the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The second ground was that since the respondent had voluntarily resigned from earlier services to enable him to join the new post of Lectureship in the Government Degree College and his resignation having been accepted by the State, he was not entitled to claim any benefit of earlier services for counting his qualifying services for fixing his pension and payment of other retiral benefits.

13. The State felt aggrieved filed intra court appeal. By impugned order, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the directions issued by the Writ Court. It is against this order; the State felt aggrieved and has filed this appeal, by special leave.

23. We find no merit in this submission in the light of our finding recorded in the preceding paragraph.

24. In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the courts below erred in directing the State to give benefit to the respondent of his services which he had rendered from "02.07.1963 to 02.01.1966" for fixing his pension without properly examining the effect of his tendering resignation on the issue raised in the writ petition.

25. In our opinion, the respondent was, therefore, entitled to get the benefit of his services rendered from "03.01.1966" onwards as mentioned by him in the Form (Annexure- P-1) for assessing his pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits etc.

26. Since we have dismissed the respondent's writ petition on merits hence, it is not necessary to deal with another question in relation to delay and laches in filing the writ petition raised by the appellant (State) which was decided by the courts below in respondent's favour. In any event, we are inclined to uphold the finding of courts below on this issue and, accordingly, hold that writ petition was not liable for dismissal on the ground of delay and laches on the part of respondent.

27. In view of foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and orders and in consequence dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent.

28. We direct the appellant (State) to finalize the claim of the respondent for fixing his pension and other retiral benefits in the light of what is held above, as per rules, and pay the same to the respondent within three months from the date of this judgment. No costs.

February 16, 2015.