SHANKARLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally with consent.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the various single bench as well as the division bench judgments and similarly situated Gangman who have rendered continuous service without any break and were not granted the pensionary benefits on the same ground have succeeded before this Court. He has placed reliance upon the division bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava v. State of MP and others, 2003 4 MPLJ 376and other division bench judgments of this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for State has opposed the writ petition and has submitted that in terms of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P. and others, 2011 3 MPLJ 210, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.