MAHESH CHAND PANDIT Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court, who is aged about 73 years, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2 in not counting the past services rendered by the petitioner under the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment dt. 10-11-2010 delivered in the case of R.R. Gehlot v. State of M.P. and another, Writ Petition No. 6176/2006 (s). The contention of the petitioner is that he is also entitled for similar relief which has been extended to identically placed persons.

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 - Municipal Corporation, Ratlam has argued before this Court that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 1996 and has filed the present writ petition only in the year 2011, hence, he is not entitled for any relief on the ground of delay and laches. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vichitra Singh Hoda v. State of M.P. and others, 2013 2 MPLJ 170.

(3.) This Court has carefully gone through the order passed in the case of R.R. Gehlot v. State of M.P. and another and the same reads as under: