Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has held that the state government's neglect, failure and omission in not conferring permanent status to an employee cannot afford any justification or good reason for them to take advantage of their own wrong in depriving him of his pensionary benefits.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra took exception to the Madhya Pradesh government's stand over denying pensionary benefits to the family of the employee, who had passed away after rendering 38 years of service.

The court directed the state government to pay retiral benefits to the employee's family, considering the order of October 12, 1999, passed by the Labour Court granting him the status of a permanent employee.

Madanlal Sharma, since deceased, had approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore, invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing a writ petition.

The case pleaded in the writ petition was that Madanlal had initially been appointed on March 11, 1974, as a mason. He had approached the Labour Court under the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, with a prayer for his “permanent classification.” By an order of October 12, 1999, the Labour Court had directed the respondents to classify Madanlal as permanent and pay him the arrears of salary with effect from June 4, 1996.

The order of the Labour Court had been challenged by the respondents (state government) before the Industrial Court by presenting an appeal under the provisions of the Act. By order of December 17, 2002, the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

The respondents then approached the High Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was also dismissed by an order of July 5, 2001.

While upholding the order of the Appellate Court (which dismissed the appeal of the respondents as time-barred), the High Court also made a reference to the merits of the claim of Madanlal and found that evidence had been led before the Labour Court, substantiating his contention.

Although not referred to in the order of the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench from which this appeal arose, the court noted that the respondents had challenged the order of July 5, 2001, by filing a special leave petition before this Court. Materials placed before the bench revealed that the said special leave petition had been dismissed on January 17, 2003, the bench said.

Subsequently, Madanlal filed a writ petition. The Single Judge, after noting the relevant facts and circumstances as well as the law applicable to qualifying service for being entitled to pension, allowed the writ petition by judgment and order of August 11, 2016, and directed the respondents to extend the benefit of pension to Madanlal with effect from January 31, 2012, within a period of three months.

The respondents challenged the order before a Division Bench of the High Court, which, by the judgment and order of September 28, 2019, upset the findings returned by the Single Judge. The writ appeal was allowed, and the writ petition of Madanlal was dismissed.

The court heard advocate Dushyant Parashar for the family of Madanlal and State government counsel.

The bench noted that the relief had been declined to Madanlal on the ground that he had not been inducted into service in accordance with the law and also that no order had been passed by the State Government for regularising Madanlal on a permanent post. It was premised on such reasons that the Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that Madanlal was not entitled to a pension.

"Madanlal was in service right from 1974 till 31st March, 2012 when he retired after attaining the age of superannuation, i.e.,for almost 38 years," the bench said.

"The respondents having been unsuccessful in having the findings of the Labour Court reversed even after litigation travelled to this Court for the first time, it was highly improper on the part of the Division Bench to embark on an inquiry as to whether Madanlal had been inducted in service as per rules or as to whether he had been granted the status of a permanent employee. However, to be fair to the Division Bench, we ought to record once again that it might not have been aware of dismissal of the special leave petition," the bench said.

When the Labour Court had directed that Madanlal should be classified as a permanent employee, the respondents were required to regularise his service, and if no post was available, they were to create a supernumerary post till such time a sanctioned post became available where he could be accommodated, the bench said.

"It is in these circumstances that we feel constrained to hold that the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in allowing the writ petition and holding that Madanlal was entitled to pensionary benefits from 31st January (sic, March), 2012," the bench said.

Court set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restored the judgment and order of the Single Judge.

"Now that Madanlal has passed away, the retiral benefits to which he was entitled, treating him to be a permanent employee, as well as benefit on account of family pension shall be released in favour of his heirs/legal representatives together with 6% interest from the date of his retirement within three months from date, upon compliance with all formalities and proper identification of his heirs/legal representatives," the bench ordered.

Case Title: Madanlal Sharma (Dead) Thr LRs Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors