HEERALAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, the writ petitions were analogously heard and by a common order, they are being disposed of by this Court. Facts of Writ Petition No.1160/2015 (S) are narrated hereunder.

(2.) The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that he was appointed in the year 1998 on the post of Master Gang Collie. In other connected cases, the petitioners were appointed on the post of Gangman (Daily Wagers) and other equivalent posts.

(3.) The petitioner's contention is that he was appointed in the year 1998 and has attained the age of superannuation on 30/04/2014. The petitioner's further contention is that similarly situated employee Lalsingh S/o Gangaram has filed a writ petition before this Court i.e. Writ Petition No.11238/2012 (S) claiming pension and by an order dated 10/12/2013, this Court has extended the benefit of pension to the petitioner therein. The petitioner has further stated that thereafter, he has submitted a representation to the Department claiming similar benefits, however, he has not been granted pension.