Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 5528
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MANINDER S. BHATTI, J
RAMKISHAN VARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 31033 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta
For the Respondents: Smt. Priyanka Mishra
Petitioners are entitled to the same benefits as similarly situated employees based on established legal precedents.
Headnote:(A) Writ Petition - Claim for pay scale arrears, dearness allowance, and representation consideration as per previous judgments. Court finds that previous decisions regarding dearness allowance entitlement apply to the petitioner; respondents must examine parity and extend similar benefits if applicable. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
(B) Previous decisions in related cases emphasized equal treatment of employees regarding benefits, affirming the necessity of compliance with established precedents. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to rectify pay scale arrears and dearness allowance in accordance with past settlements while referencing a similar ongoing case. He argued for the implementation of existing ruling principles regarding entitlement for all eligible employees.
Findings of Court:
The court ordered a review of the petitioner's claims in light of precedent, directing timely compliance with established judgments to ensure equitable treatment for all similarly situated individuals.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same benefits as others based on established case law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court stressed the importance of adhering to previous judgments regarding dearness allowance as a binding doctrine ensuring fairness in similar cases.
Result: Writ petition allowed with costs and directive for timely compliance with orders.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court ordered compliance with benefits entitlement ruling. (Para 4 , 5) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI th ON THE 19 OF AUGUST, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 31033 of 2025 RAMKISHAN VARMA Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Smt. Priyanka Mishra - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus Directing the respondents to pay benefit of pay scale arrears dearness allowance by revising the same as per terms of settlement dated 3rd February 1988 along with 12% interest.
(ii) To direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal number 321/13 and judgement of this Hon'ble court in WP No.10639/19.
(iii) Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and just in the facts and Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR circumstances of the case."
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the said question has been recently decided by Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 25598/2019 (O.P. Jain & another Vs. The Managing Director & another) along with other connected matters vide order dated 27.03.2023 and the case of the petitioner is similarly situated and the respondents may deal with the case of the petitioner in similar manner.
3) The Indore Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 25598/2019 has passed the following orders:-
"After notice, the respondents have filed reply denying the aforesaid relief only on the grouind that the petitioners were not party to W.P.No.8822/2019(S) and Civil Appeal No.321/2013. Absolutely obnoxius reply has been filed the the respondents. The Hon'ble Apex Court while pasing the order in Civil Appeal No.321/2013 ( M.D., M.P. Road Transport Corporation and Anr. Vs. Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sangh and Ors. ) and this Court in W.P.No.8822/2013(S) had clearly held that all the employees of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation who took Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme/Settlement are entitled for the dearness allowance and other consequential benefits. Once the dearness allowance has been granted then the difference of amount of gratuity, ex-gratia and leave encashment are also to be extended to the petitioners. It makes no difference if they were party in the earlier litigation or not.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR No.321/2013 ((M.D., M.P. Road Transport Corp.and Anr. Vs. Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sangh and Ors.) reads as under:-
"The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 1st July, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore. The High Court in paragraph 8, after taking into consideration the settlement dated 3rd February, 1988 arrived at between the Managing Director, M.P.State Road Transport Corporation and the M.P.Transport Workers Federation, has held that all the employees of the Corporation are entitled to the same rate of dearness allowance as is being payable to the employees of the M.P. State Government prior to the Fifth Central Pay Commission's report having been accepted by the State Government for its employees but this report has not been implemented so far as the employees of the State Road Transport Corporation is concerned.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment for the simple reason that in terms of the agreement it was agreed between the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the appellant No.1 herein and the Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangh- respondent No.1 that the same amount of dearness allowance which is payable to the State Government employees would be payable to the employe
