The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that once a legal principle regarding pension entitlement is settled for one government employee, it binds the State in identical cases. This judgment enforces consistency in public employment benefits and prevents arbitrary denial of dues to similarly placed claimants.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Dr. B.P. Tiwari, a former government employee, sought inclusion of his ad hoc service period in the calculation of pensionary benefits. He was placed at Serial No. 24 in the gradation list and contended that his claim was legally identical to that of Dr. R.B. Dubey, who had been granted the same relief in a prior writ petition.
Procedural History
- 2013: The High Court, in Dr. R.B. Dubey v. State of M.P., held that ad hoc service must be counted for pension calculation.
- 2014: The State filed a writ appeal (W.A. No. 165 of 2014), which was dismissed.
- 2020: The State filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP C No. 12685 of 2020) before the Supreme Court.
- 2024: The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, thereby affirming the High Court’s 2013 order.
Relief Sought
Dr. Tiwari sought a direction to include his ad hoc service in pension computation and payment of terminal dues within 90 days, invoking the binding precedent set in Dr. R.B. Dubey v. State of M.P.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a judgment determining that ad hoc service must be counted for pension benefits binds the State when applied to another employee with identical service conditions and placed on the same gradation list.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the binding precedent established in Dr. R.B. Dubey v. State of M.P., emphasizing that the State had exhausted all appellate remedies and the Supreme Court had declined to interfere. He argued that the principle of stare decisis and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution compelled the Court to extend the same relief to the petitioner, who was similarly situated.
For the Respondent
The State’s Advocate General conceded that she could not dispute the applicability of the precedent. She acknowledged that the State had previously litigated the issue and lost at all levels, including the Supreme Court, and did not contest the petitioner’s entitlement on substantive grounds.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the doctrine of precedent and the constitutional imperative of equal treatment under Article 14. It held that when the State has litigated and lost on a legal issue affecting a class of employees, it cannot later deny the same benefit to another member of that class on procedural or technical grounds.
"The issue pertaining to counting of adhoc services for pensionary benefit has already been decided by this Court... the present petition stands disposed of with direction that the directions/observations... shall apply to the case of the petitioner as well mutatis mutandis."
The Court emphasized that the dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court rendered the 2013 order final and authoritative. The State’s failure to challenge the petitioner’s position on merit, coupled with the identical factual matrix, left no room for differential treatment. The Court rejected any notion that the petitioner’s lower rank in the gradation list (Serial No. 24 vs. Serial No. 7) could justify denial of a legally established right.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that ad hoc service must be counted for pension calculation when a binding precedent exists for similarly situated employees. It directed the State to calculate and pay terminal dues, including the ad hoc service period, within 90 days of the certified copy of the order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Precedent Is Binding Even Without Direct Litigation
- Practitioners can now invoke settled precedents to claim benefits for clients who were not original parties, provided the factual matrix is identical.
- The State cannot evade obligations by claiming lack of notice or non-party status when the legal principle has been authoritatively settled.
Administrative Inaction Cannot Override Judicial Finality
- Government departments must proactively identify and apply judicial precedents affecting pension, seniority, or service benefits.
- Delay in implementing court orders, even after Supreme Court dismissal of appeals, constitutes a violation of Article 14 and Article 21.
Gradation List Position Does Not Override Legal Entitlement
- An employee’s position on a gradation list cannot be used to deny a right already recognized by court order.
- Where the law is settled, administrative discretion must yield to judicial mandate.
