IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA YADAV

th

ON THE 14 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT APPEAL No. 2705 of 2024 MADHYA PRADESH POWER TRANSMISSION COMAPNY LIMITED AND OTHERS Versus BHAGWAN DAS MAGARAIYA Appearance:

Shri Narottam Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Alok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Pushpendra Yadav By way of this intra-court appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, appellant is challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 passed in W.P.No.2410/2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 17.03.2016 has been allowed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was initially appointed on the post of Office Assistant Grade III on 02.02.1981 in the pay scale of Rs.475-627. Thereafter, in pursuance of policy dated 17.07.1990 for awarding higher pay scale to Class III and Class IV employees, first option was granted to the respondent after completing 9 years of service in the pay scale of Office Assistant Grade II of Rs.1220-2250. Thereafter, respondent was promoted on the post of Office Assistant Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.3560-7700 and later on, was promoted as Section Officer w.e.f. 21.07.2007.

3. Respondent applied for availing benefit of second option on

31/07/2007, but the same was rejected vide communication dated 05.02.2008 inter alia mentioning the reason that respondent had not completed 25 years of service in OA Grade nor had completed 5 years on the post of Section Officer. It was also stipulated therein that five years' period on the post of Section Officer will complete on 21.07.2012. Accordingly, the respondent applied for second option on 20.07.2012. The same was extended vide order date 06.04.2013 w.e.f. 21.07.2012. However, all of a sudden, the appellant issued order dated 17.03.2016 withdrawing the said benefit. Feeling aggrieved by the said action, respondent filed the petition which was allowed by the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.

4. It is the submission of counsel for the appellant that the learned writ Court has allowed the writ petition mainly on the ground that the impugned order does not reflect any reason for withdrawal of benefit granted to the respondent and impugned order is a non-speaking order which has been issued without affording any opportunity of hearing. Leaned writ Court in place of allowing the writ petition should have remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without assigning any reason. Respondent themselves rejected his claim by mentioning that 5 years' period on the post of Section Officer will complete on 21.07.2012 and in pursuance thereof, he applied for availing the benefit of second option on 20.07.2012 which was extended to him vide order dated 06.04.2013. The petitioner was rightly extended the said benefit, therefore, there is no question for remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Respondent had challenged the order dated 17.03.2016 mainly on the ground that the benefit was withdrawn without assigning any reason and no show-cause notice was issued prior thereto nor any opportunity of hearing was granted. Learned writ Court after relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Masood Ahmed, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 set aside the impugned order.

8. In the considered opinion of this Court there was no adjudication on the issue of entitlement of the respondent for the benefit of second option. The impugned order dated 06.04.2013 was non-speaking order and was issued without affording any opportunity of hearing. Neither the authority has d