M L BINJOLKAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These eight appeals, four by the employees, who were compulsorily retired and four by the State of Madhya Pradesh have that matrix in a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur disposing of several writ petitions filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Challenge in all these writ petitions was to the order passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (In short the Tribunal).

(2.) A brief reference to the factual background is necessary.

(3.) 559 employees were given compulsory retirement by orders dated 01.10.1997. Some of the employees who were given compulsory retirement questioned correctness of the orders in their respective cases by filing petitions before the Tribunal. By order dated 29th March, 1988, the Tribunal set aside the compulsory retirement orders, inter-alia holding that the constitution of the Screening Committee was not proper and there appear to be an apparent non-application of mind because more than 550 cases were taken up for consideration and disposed of on a single day. The concerned employees were directed to be re-instated with full back wages. States writ petitions questioning correctness of the orders passed by the Tribunal were dismissed. However, fresh action was permitted. According to the State, in terms of the High Courts order, fresh screening was done on 03.01.2000 and orders were passed directing compulsory retirement from an earlier date i.e. 01.10.1997 i.e. the date when the earlier orders for compulsory retirement were passed. Again petitions were filed before the Tribunal. By order dated 25.08.2000, the Tribunal inter-alia held that the order of compulsory retirement could not have been given retrospective operation. While directing reinstatement, the Tribunal held that the concerned employees were entitled to the consequential benefits. Again, the orders of the Tribunal were questioned before the High Court which took up several matters for consideration. In four cases, the High Court found that the orders passed were not supportable. However, in certain cases, the High Court found that there was no infirmity in the orders passed directing compulsory retirement. The High Court examined individual cases at the request of the parties as it was conceded that the High Court could direct fresh consideration. In the four cases where the High Court found that the orders directing compulsory retirement were not supportable, the concerned employees were permitted to join back pursuant to the orders of re-instatement. All the four employees who were so re-instated have, in the meantime, retired on reaching the age of superannuation. The High Court had also directed that in each of these cases, the concerned employee was to be granted 50% of the amount payable as salary, allowance etc. The State has questioned the view expressed by the High Court that the orders passed in respect of four of the employees were not supportable in law. The said employees also questioned correctness of the High Courts orders submitting that the direction for payment of 50% of the entitlement was not justifiable as no reasons were indicated for directing cut.