Deepti Jain vs State of M.P.

Calling in question the tenability of an order dated 22.8.2014 passed by the writ court in W.P. No.12065/2014, this writ appeal has been filed.

The appellant no.1 is the wife of Late Dilip Kumar Jain and appellant no.2 is the son of Late Suresh Kumar Dahiya. Both Dilip Kumar Jain and Suresh Kumar Dahiya were working as Assistant Teachers and have died admittedly before filing of writ petition. However while in service these two employees were not granted the benefit of increment and regular pay from the initial date of appointment and based on the judgment rendered in the case of Madhukant Yadu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, in O.A. No.2745/1989 decided on 24.8.1992 and Smt. Usha Ranawat Vs. State of M.P. and others W.A. No.346/2008, the writ petition was filed seeking the benefit and the learned writ Court dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that the employees while they were alive having not claimed the aforesaid benefit and now the benefit cannot be given to their legal heirs.

Shri D.K. Sharma points out that by virtue of order passed in the case of Madhukant Yadu and Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra), employees were granted the arrears of payment as directed by this Court and Supreme Court, once the same is done the legal heirs are entitled for certain post retiral benefits the same may be calculated and granted to the legal heirs. He submits that the writ Court committed an error in rejecting the claim of the appellants holding that during the life time of the employee no benefit was claimed by them. He further invites our attention to circular dated 11.11.2008 and another circular issued earlier in the year 2006 to point out that based on the various judgments rendered after decision was taken in the case of Madhukant Yadu and Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra), and again in LPA No. 134/2006 State of M.P. Vs. Pankaj instructions have been issued to calculate and pay all the arrears including recalculation of pension benefit and once the State Government has directed vide circular dated 11.11.2008, the claim of legal heirs could not be rejected on the ground that the employees did not claim the benefit during their life time.

Shri D.K. Sharma argued that consideration for payment to the legal heirs of employee stands on the same footing as that of the employees who are still alive and there is no difference whether the employee was alive or benefit is claimed by the legal heirs. He claims that the legal heirs are entitled for certain monetary benefit and the writ Court rejected the same without taking note of aforesaid judgments.

Even though Shri Rahul Jain, refuted the aforesaid contention, we are of the considered view that it is a matter where the benefit should be granted. After the judgments in the case of Madhukant Yadu and Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra), and after various judgment were given by this Court and after dismissal of SLP State of M.P. Vs. Pankaj all the Assistant Teachers working in the State of Madhya Pradesh were granted benefit in the matter of pay fixation from the date of their initial appointment and their legal representatives were also granted benefit. That apart a circular was also issued by the State Government dated 11.11.2008 for payment of arrears and re-fixation of pay and pension of the employees. The legal heirs are entitled to claim monetary benefit which accrued to the employee during his life time in view of the judgment rendered in Madhukant Yadu and the effect of revision of payment and arrears and revision of pension as per the circular, the legal heirs are also entitled to stake their claim to this monetary benefit which they inherit as estate of the employee. That apart keeping judicial note of the fact that, there are hundreds of legal heirs in whose case similar petitions have been allowed and if the persons like the present appellants are denied similar benefit, it would amount to creating two categories of legal heirs. This would amount to discrimination and cannot be permitted.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. On the petitioner filing relevant document respondents shall examine the claim of the appellants regarding grant of regular pay from the initial date of appointment and after considering the case of Madhukant Yadu and Smt. Usha Ranawat (supra), shall decide the claim by a speaking order. Needless to emphasize that if the employee was not entitled to get the benefit, it shall be incumbent upon the respondents to record reasons and communicate it to the appellants. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid this appeal stands allowed and disposed of.

C.C., as per rules.