Indore (Madhya Pradesh): bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on Monday dismissed a writ appeal filed by State government, thereby upholding an earlier order directing authorities to reconsider and grant service-related monetary benefits to a widow of a PWD employee.
Division bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi rejected writ appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against Ramkanya Bai. While allowing the State’s application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the court found no merit in the appeal on substantive grounds and dismissed it without costs.
The appeal challenged an order dated March 28 passed by a single judge, who had set aside the rejection of Ramkanya Bai’s representation and remitted the matter back to the authorities with directions to reconsider her claim and grant all lawful benefits.
The case pertains to late Uderam, who was appointed as a gangman in the PWD, Mandsaur. According to the petitioner, after completing six months of service, Uderam acquired permanent status and became entitled to consequential benefits. In an award dated October 26, 2002, the Mandsaur labour court directed the department to classify him as a permanent employee from the date of filing of the claim and to pay the difference of arrears.
The department’s challenge to the labour court award was dismissed successively by the industrial court in December 2003, the High Court in January 2005, and later by the Supreme Court in March 2011, which dismissed the State’s special leave petition.
Subsequently, Ramkanya Bai again approached the HC in 2021. Her petition was disposed of in Lok Adalat in March 2022 with directions to submit a fresh representation, which was to be decided by a reasoned order in accordance with law. However, the executive engineer rejected her claim on October 11, 2022, prompting fresh litigation.
Upholding the single judge’s order, the division bench observed that once the labour court’s award had attained finality up to the Supreme Court, it was not open to the authorities to re-examine its legality or deny consequential financial benefits. The court held that the rejection of the widow’s representation was erroneous and rightly set aside.
With this ruling, the State’s appeal stands dismissed, clearing the way for reconsideration of Ramkanya Bai’s claim and grant of due benefits in accordance with law.
