Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 6470
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MANINDER S. BHATTI, J
ROUF KHAN AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 33263 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Vinod Shankar Trivedi
For the Respondents: Ms. Vaaridhi Pathak, Shri Sunil Gautam
The court reaffirmed that all employees are entitled to dearness allowance and related benefits regardless of their status as parties in previous litigations.
Headnote:(A) Employment Law - Mandamus - Writ petitions filed for benefit of pay scale arrears and dearness allowance based on earlier settlements - Petitioners argued their case aligned with a prior ruling for employees' entitlement to dearness allowance and other benefits. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6)
(B) Similarity in Cases - Objection raised on party status in prior cases deemed irrelevant - Court ruled all employees entitled to the same benefits regardless. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought dereference and payment of arrears based upon previous settlements and Supreme Court judgments emphasizing equal treatment of employees in the same circumstances.
Findings of Court:
The court directed similar benefits should be applied to petitioners after a parity check, within a specified time frame.
Issues: The petition raised questions on entitlement based on earlier court rulings and settlement agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that all affected employees, including those who retired voluntarily, are equally entitled to benefits under same rulings established in earlier cases.
Result: Writ petitions are allowed, directing compliance with previous rulings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments highlight the need for parity with a similar case ruling. (Para 2) |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI st ON THE 1 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 33263 of 2025 ROUF KHAN AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER Appearance:
Shri Vinod Shankar Trivedi - Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Vaaridhi Pathak - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1/State.
Shri Sunil Gautam - Advocate for the respondent No.2.
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-
''7.1. 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 rd settlement dated 3 February 1988 alongwith 12%
interest.
7.2 To direct the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners case in accordance with law and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in civil appeal number 321/13 and judgment of this Hon’ble court in WP 10639/2019.
7.3 Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble court deems fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that the said question has been recently decided by the Co-ordinate Bench at Indore in W.P. No. 25598/2019 vide order dated 27.03.2023 and the case of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA petitioners is similarly situated and the respondents may deal with the case of the petitioners in similar manner.
3. The Co-ordinate Bench 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 ground 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 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA 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 employees of the M.P.State Road
