ASHOK SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 20/12/1971 and superannuated in the year 2013. Earlier petitioner had been removed from services in the year 1984. The said order of removal was put to challenge in M.P. No. 960/1986 before this Court, which was subsequently transferred to State Administrative Tribunal as T.A. No. 2673/88. The said petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 19/2/1998. The order of removal was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated in services without backwages. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to impose appropriate punishment after giving due opportunity of hearing. In compliance of the said order, respondents passed the order dated 15/4/1998 imposing punishment of fixing the petitioner at minimum payscale for two years without cumulative effect and by the same order, petitioner was re-instated in services. Thereafter, petitioner continued to discharge his duties and ultimately superannuated in the year 2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time of fixation of pension on his retirement, respondents did not take into account his entire services, resulting in lower fixation of pension. Respondents have termed his reinstatement in service as fresh entry and did not count the period of services rendered earlier for the purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. Moreover, due to non counting of period of service from 1971-1984, the petitioner was also denied the benefit of second time-scale since the respondents have calculated the period from 1998-2013 and consequently held that petitioner had not completed 20 years of service. Even the representation preferred by the petitioner has been turned down without assigning any cogent reason. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had rendered services w.e.f. 1971 to 1984 and in the year 1984, he was terminated and the said order was put to challenge. The learned Tribunal set aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatment without backwages, which does not mean that the period from 1971 to 1984 is not required to be counted.There is no order of the learned Tribunal not to reckon the period 1971 to 1984. Under such circumstanes, respondents ought to have calculated the pensionary benefits reckoning the period 1971 to 1984. Since, learned Tribunal had set aside the order of termination, respondents ought to have treated the petitioner to be in service since 1971 till 1984, for the purposes of fixation of pension and other retiral dues.