Municipal Corporation vs Subhashchandra Talera

Heard on the question of admission.

This order shall govern disposal of Writ Appeals No. 1143 to 1146 and 1148 to 1151 of 2013 and Writ Appeal No. 416 of 2014. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Appeal No. 1143/2013.

By filing this intra court appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1854/2013 (s).

The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner - a retired employee of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam, feeling aggrieved by the action of the appellant in not counting past service rendered by him under the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam.

Learned Single Judge, after considering the law laid down by this Court in the case of R.R. Gehlot v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another [Writ Petition No. 6176/2006 (s)] decided on 10.11.2010, which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 17/2011 vide order dated 18.07.2012 [Municipal Corporation, Ratlam v. R.R. Gehlot] and further noticing the fact that the order passed by the Division Bench was upheld by the Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP, allowed the writ petition. Undisputedly, the said R.R. Gehlot was also employee of the present appellant.

The Writ Court directed the appellant to take into account the past services rendered by the writ petitioner under the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam for computing the qualifying service for grant of pension. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this intra court appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that though the writ petitioner is similarly placed as R.R. Gehlot, but the present writ petitioner had approached to the Court, after a long lapse of time, and as such, learned Single Judge should not have granted the relief. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the petitioner having availed the facility of CPF Scheme, he was not entitled for the relief. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar 2010(1) SCC 214 (SC).

Having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by this Court in the case of R.R. Gehlot, which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court, we find no ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ petitioners had claimed for counting of their past services for the purposes of pension, which has been granted by the Writ Court taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court affirmed by Supreme Court as also various judgments, including the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board Vs. M.S. Krishnaswamy and Others, The question of delay in approaching for seeking issuance of direction to count the past services rendered by the petitioners for computing the qualifying service for grant of pension does not arise, as it is a continuing cause of action because it affects the pension of the retired writ petitioner. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar is on different point and has no application to the facts of this case.

Thus, we find no ground to interfere into the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.