Pramila Gupta vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief:-

"1. That, the impugned notice dated 18.10.2019 issued by the Respondent No.3 contained in Annexure- P/1 and the notices dated 18.10.2019 and 14.11.2019 issued by Respondent No.5 contained in Annexure- P/2 and P/3 may kindly be declared bad in law and the same be quashed, in the interest of justice.

That, the respondents be further directed not to insist to the petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.2 with a further not to take any further action consequence to notices Annexure- P/1, P/2 and P/3, in the interest of justice.

Cost of the petition be awarded or any other order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in the favour of the petitioner. "

This case has an exchequered history. The petitioner has filed W.P. No.7812/2014, thereby challenging the order dated 30.07.2014 by which absence of the petitioner from 28.10.1984 to 14.10.1999 was declared as dies-non. The said writ petition was decided by this Court on 21.08.2019 with the following observations:

"Dies-non obviously causes adverse affect upon the service conditions of the petitioner since it eclipses the qualifying service to the extent of it's application thereby proportionately reducing the pension, and therefore, before passing an order of dies-non the least that is required of the employer is to afford an opportunity of being heard which has not been provided by the employer in the present case before passing the impugned order.

Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this petition in the following terms :-

The impugned order dated 30/07/2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner, Public instruction, Bhopal stands quashed.

State is free to pass a fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, if so advised.

The petitioner is a retired govt. servant and has been compelled to knock the doors of the Court in the evening of her life for a cause which arose out of blatant disregard of the principles of natural justice on the part of the employer and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to cost of this litigation which is quantified at Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand Only) which shall be paid by the State of M.P. within 30 (thirty) days by digital transaction in the pension account of the petitioner as soon as the petitioner furnishes details of the bank account. Compliance report be submitted in that regard with the Registry, failing which the Registry is directed to list the matter as PUD for execution.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that respondents have issued letters dated 18.10.2019 and 14.11.2019 directing the petitioner to appear before the competent authority, however, the petitioner is medically unfit and she is under constant treatment and therefore, she is not in a position to appear before the authority personally and thus, she may be permitted to file her response explaining her absence from 28.10.1984 to 14.10.1999 and the respondents may decide the matter on the basis of the response, which would be submitted by the petitioner and in case if any adverse order is passed, then she would never challenge the same on the ground that she was not given opportunity of personal hearing.

The submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner are not opposed by the counsel for the State.

Accordingly, it is directed that since the petitioner claiming herself to be incapacitated because of her illness, therefore, instead of asking the petitioner to appear personally before the competent authority, the petitioner would submit her written reply to the competent authority explaining her absence from 28.10.1984 to 14.10.1999. Written Reply submitted by the petitioner would be treated as opportunity of hearing and after considering the written reply, the respondents shall pass the necessary order. It is clear from the letter dated 14.11.2019 that the petitioner was asked to appear personally on 21.11.2019. Accordingly, it is directed that in case if the petitioner sends her written reply on 21.11.2019, then competent authority shall take the same on record and shall decide the matter in controversy in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of finally.