IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA

th

ON THE 26 OF NOVEMBER, 2025 CIVIL REVISION No. 63 of 2007 KAILASH NARAYAN Versus NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD CHANDERI AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Deepak Shrivastava, Advocate for applicant.

None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwah, Government Advocate for respondent No.3/State.

ORDER This civil revision, under Section 115 of the CPC, has been filed against the st judgment and decree dated 29/03/2007 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Guna in Civil Appeal No. 4B/2005, by which the judgment and decree dated 29/08/2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-II, Chanderi in Civil Suit No. 23-B/1998 was reversed.

2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for applicant that Rauf Khan had also filed a suit for recovery of wages on identical grounds, and this Court, by a separate order passed today in Rauf Khan (Deleted) through LRs Rasida Begam & another v. Nagar Palika Parishad, Chanderi & Others (C.R. No. 62/2007), has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. The present case is covered by the said order in C.R. No. 62/2007, as the facts, issues, and findings are identical.

3. This Court in Rauf Khan (Supra) has held as under:-

This civil revision, under Section 115 of CPC, has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29/03/2007 passed by I Additional District Judge, Mungawali, District Guna in Civil Appeal No. 5B/2005, by which the judgment and decree dated 29/08/2005 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Chanderi, District Guna in Civil Suit No. 22-B/1998 was set aside.

2. Applicants are legal representatives of plaintiff, who has lost his case from the first appellate court.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of the present revision, in short, are that plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.13,000/- by way of arrears of salary from March 1983 to September 1984 and March 1984 to January 1985. The suit was filed on 28/10/1986. The suit filed by applicant was decreed by the trial Court. However, the appeal filed by respondent was allowed by the first appellate Court and it has been held that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. The first appellate Court has held that the plaintiff was appointed on the post of Pump Operator on 1/8/1977 in Municipal Council, Chanderi. The appointment was against a post which was sanctioned by the State. Thereafter, Municipal Council, Chanderi stood abolished and was succeeded by SADA and the services of the plaintiff stood merged in SADA. However, the merger was not approved. Since the appointment of plaintiff was not approved by the Selection Committee, therefore the appointment of plaintiff was rejected by SADA by order dated 05/04/1983. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before Collector, Guna who allowed the appeal by order dated 29/10/1983 and remanded the matter back to SADA. Thereafter, on 10/09/1984 a resolution was passed to regularize his services, but neither the salary nor the arrears were paid. It was claimed that only after the order dated 29/10/1983 was passed by Collector Guna, his salary was restored. Thus the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of salary and arrears from March 1983 to September 1984 and from March 1984 to January 1985. At a subsequent stage, SADA was abolished and Municipal Council, Chanderi was reconstituted and services of the petitioner/applicant were transferred to Municipal Council, Chanderi and accordingly CMO and Municipal Council, Chanderi were made parties. After the constitution of Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, the case was transferred to SAT, from where the matter was sent back to the trial court. The first appellate Court has held that although the plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of his salary from March 1983 to September 1984 and March 1984 to January 1985, but he has not clarified that how much salary he was getting in March 1983. He has also not clarified what arrears were giv