SUKHLAL YADAV Vs. MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired in the year 1986. This order of retirement came into force on his attaining the age of 58 years. However, some other employees, in whose cases also the age of retirement was notified as 58 yeas, challenged the action of the management. Ultimately the Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Dubey Vs. M. P. S. R. T. C. and another, : AIR 1991 SC 276, came to the conclusion that in the case of those employees, who were previously employees of the Central Provinces Transport Corporation and, whose services were taken over by the M. P. State Road Transport Corporation, their age of retirement would be 60 years. When the judgement was given, the present petitioner preferred representation in the year 1990. He also preferred the present writ petition. In the present writ petition his claim is that he should be deemed to have retired when he attained the age 60 years. He seeks not only the pensionary benefits but he also seeks emoluments for the period for which he was wrongly kept out of service by placing wrong interpretation on rules. So far as the claim regarding pensionary benefits is concerned, something can be said in favour of the petitioner. But claim regarding payment of back wages during the period he did not work cannot be sustained. This is because in the case of Nand Kishore Nayak Vs. State of Orissa and another : AIR 1991 SC 1724, such a relief was not granted to those employees who came to the Court after their colleagues were able to get some relief from the Court. Relevant observations made in para 4 may be noticed as under : -

(2.) CASES of the present type where the employee accepted his retirement at the age of 58 years and is now seeking the benefit of the High Courts order stand on a different footing from those whose services were wrongly terminated. In our view such employees would not be entitled to salary for the idle period but the relief for refixation of pension by extending the date of superannuation by two years can be granted to them. We, therefore, direct the State Government to grant the benefit of the judgment to all those employees including the appellant herein who would have otherwise retired at the age of 60 years on the interpretation placed on the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules by the High Court. This aspect of the matter was considered by this Court in case of Ramchandra Vs. M. P. S. R. T. Corporation Bhopal and another,, 1992 M. P. L. S. R. 288, and relying upon the Nand Kishore's case (supra) and it was held that a person who was wrongly retired but who did not prefer a petition immediately would not be entitled to wages. He would only be entitled to pensionary benefits.

(3.) IN view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and by the Division Bench of this Court, the claim regarding salary is not maintainable. However, the petitioner would be entitled to other benefits such as contribution provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and fixation of pension. This petition is disposed of accordingly.