AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on the question of admission. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.04.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 7597/2007 (s), by which learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition in part and directed the respondents to consider and grant the relief to the petitioner on the principle of parity as other similarly placed employees have been granted the benefit.
This appeal is barred by limitation of 273 days, for which the appellants have filed an application (IA No. 2743/2013) u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.
Considering the reasons as stated in the application, which are supported by an affidavit of the OIC of the case and the fact that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has no objection for condoning the delay in filing this appeal, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Heard on admission.
Facts of the case are that respondent was appointed on 05.08.1965 as Lecturer in a government aided private institution.
The institution was taken over by the State Government with effect from 17.08.1974 and the respondent was also absorbed in the government service. The respondent was retired, after attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.05.2003. Thereafter, the respondent (writ petitioner) made a representation to the respondents (State) to count the services rendered by him with effect from 05.08.1965 to 17.08.1974 for the purpose of fixing his pension, but it was rejected by the appellant/State of Madhya Pradesh.
A copy of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in State of Bihar Vs. S.A. Hassan and Another, was placed before the Learned Single Judge; apart from this, fact was also brought to the notice of the writ Court that similarly situated employees were already extended the benefits. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Single Judge found that the matter deserves reconsideration, quashed the impugned order and directed the appellants herein to reconsider the matter, in the light of the aforesaid factual position. This order has been assailed by the State of Madhya Pradesh before this Court.
Though the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the appellants has tried to assail the aforesaid order, but we find that the learned Single Judge has directed for reconsideration of the matter on the basis of fresh representation only. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. The writ appeal is without merit and is accordingly dismissed at admission stage, with no order as to cost. C. c. as per rules.