STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. INDRA SEN JAIN
LAWS(SC)-1997-11-72
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on November 20,1997

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant
VERSUS
INDRA SEN JAIN Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

UMEDBHAI M PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2000-3-59] [REFERRED]
RAM NATH BHAGGOO VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR TAMIL NADU TEA PLANTATION CORPORATION LIMITED COONOOR VS. SRINIVASA TIMBERS SALEM [LAWS(MAD)-1998-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UOI VS. T K CHOUDHURI [LAWS(MAD)-2000-8-63] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND RAM VERMA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(CHH)-2011-2-6] [REFERRED]
BAL KISHAN GARG VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2005-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
K.G. NANCHAHAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2001-11-145] [REFERRED]
NAND LAL JAISWAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-53] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. - (1.)This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in second appeal No. 28 of 1987.
(2.)On 11-12-1947 the respondent was appointed as a Clerk in the Court of the District Judge, Shivpuri. On 30-1-1948 the respondent was confirmed in the post of Clerk with effect from 11-12-1947. After completion of 25 years of service on 10-8-1973 the respondent was served with a notice compulsorily retiring him from service after three months from the receipt of the notice. On 15-11-1973 the respondent was compulsorily retired from service in public interest under the provisions of the new Pension Rules of 1951.
(3.)The respondent challenged his compulsory retirement by filing a Writ Petition being Misc. Petition No. 304 of 1975 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court by its order dated 25-11-1975 dismissed the petition. On 12-11-1976 the respondent filed Civil Suit No. 264-A of 1976 challenging his compulsory retirement on the same grounds which had been urged by him in Misc. Petition No. 304 of 1975. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The respondent's first appeal was also dismissed. In respondent's second appeal No. 122 of 1980, however, the High Court by its order dated 26-7-1985 negatived the contention of the appellants that the suit was barred by res judicata and remanded the suit for retrial on the main issue whether the compulsory retirement of the respondent was, in fact, an order seeking to punish him for his past misconduct. If so, in the absence of compliance of provisions of Article 311(2), the order was bad in law.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.