IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI ON THE 9^th OF NOVEMBER, 2022 WRIT PETITION No. 3449 of 2019 BETWEEN:-

BRAJENDRA PRASAD MISHRA S/O LATE SHRI RAMKRIPAL MISHRA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED LAB TECHNICIAN FROM GOVT. MODEL SCIENCE COLLEGE REWA R/O VILLAGE AND POST BANSH (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE)

AND

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

2. COMMISSIONER HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SATPURA BHAWAN BHOPAL DISTT BHOPAL MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. PRINCIPAL GOVT MODEL S CIENCE COLLEGE REWA DISTT REWA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS DISTT REWA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF TREASURY AND ACCOUNTS DISTT REWA MP (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SONALI SHRIVASTAVA, PANEL LAWYER)

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

ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR The petitioner has filed this petition while praying for the following reliefs:-

"7.(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned PPO daed 25-10-2018 so far as it relates to the date of appointment i.e. 01-09-1989 and direct the respondents to issue fresh PPO treating the petitioner's initially appointment w.e.f. 31-12-1984 and pay all the retiral benefits accordingly including pension and higher pay-scale within stipulated period.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case."

As contended in the memorandum of petition, the petitioner herein was initially appointed as Assistant Lab Technician against a vacant post vide order dated 31-12-1984. Thereafter, the petitioner was again appointed vide order dated 13-06-1985 and in compliance of the said order, the petitioner joined services on 15-06-1985. Lateron the post of Assistant Lab Technician was re- designated as Lab Technician and the petitioner was vide order dated 19-01- 1987 was fixed at the lower stage of scale. Thereafter, the petitioner was extended the benefit of first Kromonati on the basis of regular appointment in the year 1999 and second higher pay-scale was granted on 01-09-2009. The petitioner eventually upon attaining the age of superannuation retired on 31-12- 2016. As the petitioner's past services rendered on adhoc basis, were not counted for the purposes of pension fixation, the petitioner has filed this petition.

The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner herein was initially appointed on the strength of order dated 31-12-1984 and thereafter, the petitioner continued in service and the said order was again followed by another order dated 31-05-1985, which has been filed as Annexure-P/9 to IA No.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PARMESHWAR

13310/22. Thereafter, vide order dated 13-06-1985, the petitioner was then confirmed in the post of Lab Technician and eventually, the petitioner was regularised and therefore, once the petitioner rendered adhoc services with the post of Lab Technician, the period spent on adhoc employee should have been counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit in terms of Rule 15, 15-A of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was not appointed while taking recourse to due process of law. It is further contended by the counsel that there were breaks in service in between 1985 to 1987 and therefore, the petitioner cannot allege that he was in continuous employment of the respondents. As there were intermittent breaks which have been detailed in paragraph- 6 of the return, the petitioner is not eligible for counting of adhoc services for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The counsel also submits that an Internal Grievance Redressal Committee has been co