LAXMI JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a retired member Judge of the Industrial Court and on retirement claims payment of Dearness allowance as payable to the Central Government employees in the terms of Rule 9 and 12 of the M.P. Judicial Services Revision of Pay Rules, 2003. It is stated that in case of another similarly situated member Judge of the Industrial Court one Shri Satish Shrivastava, this Court in Writ Petition No.3328/2012 decided on 08.07.2013 has granted similar benefits. The said judgment is reported in 2013(3) MPLJ 691 and in para-11 of the aforesaid judgment the direction has been issued that the employees like the petitioner are entitled to Dearness allowance at par with the DA payable to the Central Government employees. According to the petitioner the same was paid to the Satish Shrivastava from 01.04.2004 and the petitioner claims the similar benefits. Apart from inviting our attention to the judgment rendered in the case of Satish Shrivastava (supra) Smt. Menon, learned Senior Counsel invites our attention to the order dated 14.07.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.511/2014 wherein challenge is made to the learned Single Judge in the case of Satish Shrivastava (supra) was dismissed and the Writ Appeal filed by the State Government has been rejected thereafter she submits that the SLP filed by the State Government was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.04.2010 and benefit has been extended to Satish Shrivastava claiming similar benefits, this Writ Petition has been filed.

(2.) Respondent represented by Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate has filed a short return and in the return it is only indicated that the representation filed by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the competent authority and the competent authority is will take decision very soon.

(3.) Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstance we find that the principle with regard to the payment of Dearness allowance at par with Central Government employees and interpretation of the statutory rule have already been undertaken by this Court in the case of Satish Shrivastava (supra) and benefit granted to Satish Shrivastava, and therefore, normally there is no difficulty to the State Government to extend the similar benefit to all identically situated employees. It is not known as to why in the case of the present petitioner the same is kept pending, however, as a representation filed by the petitioner is still pending and we find that the petitioner had submitted the representation on 05.08.2015 we direct the State Government to take a decision on the representation and extend all the benefit as has been extended in the case of Satish Shrivastava (supra), however, in case State Government feels that the said benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner or that can be only extended in modified form it shall be incumbent upon the respondent to record the reason from the same and communicate to the petitioner either way the decision should be taken within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.