IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 14 OF MAY, 2024 WRIT PETITION No. 22889 of 2021 BETWEEN:-

VIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI PANCHURAM SHARMA, AGED-65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET. GOVT. SERVANT R/O BEHIND PGV COLLEGE NEAR HANS RAJ SCHOOL GENDE WALI SADAK LASHKAR GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI D.P. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVT. OF M.P. SATPUDA BHAWAN 5TH FLOOR A-B WING BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR HIGHER EDUCATION GWALIOR CHAMBAL REGION MOTI MAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. JOINT DIRECTOR TREASURY ACCOUNT AND PENSION MOTI MAHAL GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER GWALIOR DISTT.

GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. PRINCIPAL MAHARANI LAXMIBAI GOVT. COLLEGE OF EXCELLENCE DISTT. GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI (BY SHRI SHIRAJ QURESHI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred being aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and unlawful act on part of the respondents whereby services of the petitioner rendered as Book-lifter on Ad-hoc basis from 07.05.1984 to 10.06.1987 was not counted for granting pensionary benefits. The aforesaid act of the respondents has been assailed on the ground that such non-counting of ad-hoc services as Book-lifter for the purpose of pensionary benefits had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, as it had affected his legitimate claims and though the petitioner had regularly represented the authorities and even the Principal of the College i.e. Respondent no. 6 vide letter dated 27.02.2020 had forwarded the recommendation to the Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Bhopal/respondent no.2, but on the same no decision has been taken so far. Thus, the relief was sought that the respondent be commanded to take cognizance over his representation and pass an appropriate order with regard to counting his services rendered on adhoc basis for the purposes of pensionary benefits with a further stipulation to revise his terminal claims and pay arrears alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, in accordance with law.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, while placing reliance on the notification dated 11.06.2020 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, whereby an amendment in Rule 15A of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 has been inserted which reads that in case of two or more interruptions in the ad-hoc Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI services, only ad-hoc period immediately preceding the regular appointment shall be deemed to be qualified for pension had submitted that the aforesaid amendment since has not been made in prospective by any express provision, it would be deemed to even act retrospectively and would be applicable in the case of the petitioner who had stood retired in the year, 2017.

3. It was further submitted that the petitioner admittedly was appointed on

07.05.1984 on ad-hoc basis on the post of Book- lifter by adopting regular mode of recruitment and he continued on the said post without any brake till 10.06.1987 in respondent no.6/College, thereafter, in pursuance to an advertisement issued by MP Junior Service Selection Board for the post of Assistant Grade-III, he had applied and got selected and since his appointment vide order dated 11.06.1987 on regular basis in respondent no.6/College itself, till his attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2017, he had worked in the same College, his past services, since were without any interruption are required to be considered for pensionary benefits.

4. It was further submitted that even after representing the respondents for counting his past ad-hoc services as Book-Lifter while cal