IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 27 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 23391 of 2003 SMT. SABHNA DIXIT Versus THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Suyash Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Girish Kekre - Government Advocate for the State.

ORDER The original petitioner had approached the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal vide OAB No.341/1996. Later on, upon the abolition of Tribunal, the case was transferred to this Court. The original petitioner has filed this petition while praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order A/1 supra.

(ii) It is, further prayed that the respondents be directed to treat the applicant to be in service till he attains the age of superannuation on 30/11/1997, hithertobefore for all service benefit such as Annual increments, revised Pensionary benefits if and when they accrue due in future etc.

(iii) The respondents be directed to make payment with effect from 17/2/1995 to 25.2.1995 because the impugned order of compulsory retirement was served on the applicant only on 25/2/1995 in the afternoon but he has not been paid for actual period because in the impugned order it is written that it will come into force from the date of its issue.

(iv) In the ends of justice, the Hon'ble Tribunal is requested to send for original record and relevant file/files of Screening Committee resulting in issuance of impugned order A/1. This record and connected files are in power and possession of the Respondents on the basis of which they are said to have reached to the conclusion of so called ‘public interest'.

(v) Any other efficacious remedy/remedies and/or relief/réliefs which which Hon'ble Tribunal considers fit necessary appropriate in the circumstances of the case may be granted to the Applicant.

(vi) Cost of the Application together with applicant’s counsel fee may also be taxed against respondent State."

2. The facts of the case in nutshell are that the original petitioner was initially appointed as Agriculture Assistant (LD) on 17.07.1961. Later on, he was promoted to higher pay scale vide order date 24.06.1963 as Agriculture Assistant (UD). Subsequently, the original petitioner earned his next promotion to the Gazetted Rank Class-II as Assistant Director Agriculture (Horticulture) in the year 1980. The original petitioner was duly confirmed vide order dated 30/4/1984. While he was posted at Jhabua as Assistant Director, one Shri S.P. Richachriya, the then Deputy Director (Horticulture) filed a report against the original petitioner pursuant to which he got suspended vide order dated 30.03.1990 (Annexure A/8). Because the charge- sheet was not served upon him within statutory limit of 90 days, the original petitioner submitted his joining on 29.06.1990 but he was permitted to resume his duties subsequent in point of time from 27.07.1990. The original petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 19.09.1990, in which as many as 5 charges were levelled against him and after 5 years of long enquiry 4 charges were found proved against him and accordingly, punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was passed vide order dated 10.01.1995. Then he preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order but the same got rejected. The original petitioner then challenged the order dated 10.01.1995 by filing a separate case vide O.A.B no. 408/1995 before the erstwhile SAT and upon its abolition the same got transferred to this Court and registered as W.P. No. 23288/2003. Subsequently another order dated 17.02.1995 was passed against petitioner by which he was compulsorily retired. Hence, this petition.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of compulsory retirement which is contained in Annexure P/1 has been passed in complete ignorance of the provisions of Rule 42 of the Pension Rules, 1976. It is contended by the counsel that the orig