Bombay High Court
Pratap Mohanlal Shewte vs M.S.E.B., Thr.Secretary on 16 November, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp1174.94
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION Nos. 1174/1994 & 1316/2001.
.......
WRIT PETITION No. 1174/1994.
Pratap Mohanlal Shewte,
(Dead through L.Rs.)
1. Jagdish s/o Pratap Shewte,
Aged about 45 years,
2. Balraj s/o Pratap Shewte,
Aged about 39 years,
3. Prakash s/o Pratap Shewte,
Aged about 35 years,
4. Mukesh s/o Pratap Shewte,
Aged about 30 years,
5. Smt. Buddhobai wd/o Pratap Shewte,
Aged about 75 years,
All behind Hanuman Mandir,
Gittikhadan, Katol Road, Nagpur.
6. Sau. Geeta w/o Pratap Sankat,
Aged about 48 years,
r/o. Surendra Gadh, Seminary Hills,
Nagpur.
7. Sau. Nirmala w/o Amar Charote,
Aged about 36 years,
r/o. Near Lokpriya Vidyalaya,
Gorewada Road, r/o. At and post
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 00:33:17 :::
Judgment wp1174.94
2
Borgaon, District Nagpur.
8. Sau. Anita w/o Ram Chavan,
Aged about years,
r/o. Chaprashi Camp, Amravati.
9. Sau. Babli w/o Gulab Pathrol,
Aged about years,
r/o. Abhilash Nagar, Burhanpur (M.P.)
10. Mrs. Saroj wd/o Kishore Shewte,
Aged about 40 years, Occ - Nil,
r/o. Near Gayatri Mandir,
Gopal Nagar, Nagpur.
11. Miss Mamta d/o Kshore Shewte,
Aged about 21 years,
12. Miss. Vijayata d/o Kishore Shewte,
Aged about 19 years,
13. Miss Poonam d/o Kishore Shewte,
Aged about 17 years,
14. Miss Priyanka d/o Kishore Shewte,
Aged about 15 years,
Nos. 13 to 15 represented through
minor guardian next friend.
R/o. Behind Hanuman Mandir,
Gittikhadan, Katol Road,
Nagpur. ....PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
through its Secretary, Prakash Gadh,
Aliwar Jang Marg, Station Road,
Bandra (East) Bombay 400 051.
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 00:33:17 :::
Judgment wp1174.94
3
2. State of Maharashtra,
through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32. ....RESPONDENTS
.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 1316/2001.
1. Maharashtra Rajya Vidhut Mandal
Nivrutta Karmachari Sangh,
Kranti Apartment, 11, Bhagwaghar
Layout, Dharampeth, Nagpur,
through its Secretary.
2. Bhaskar Keshar Karandikar
(Dead through L.Rs.)
2a.Smt. Ranjana w/o Bhaskar Karandikar,
Aged about 78 years,
2b.Sunil s/o Bhaskar Karandikar,
Aged about 52 years,
Both residents of Flat No.6, Kranti
Apartment, Bhagwaghar Dharampeth,
Nagpur.
2c.Sanjeev s/o Bhaskar Karandikar,
Aged about 54 years, Flat No.2,
Neel Corner, R.C. Nagar, New Panvel,
Navi Mumbai.
2d.Rajeev s/o Bhaskar Karandikar,
Aged about 56 years, resident of
A-1, Sai Complex, Borkute Layout,
Narendra Nagar, Nagpur.
3. Vishveshwar s/o Marotrao Dawale,
retired employee of M.S.E.B. And
Secretary, Maharashtra Rajya Vidhut
::: Uploaded on - 24/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 00:33:17 :::
Judgment wp1174.94
4
Sangh, 103, East High Court Road,
Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. ....PETITIONERS.
RSUS
1. Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Prakash Gadh, Offi. Aliwar Jang Marg,
Bandra (East) Mumbai 400 051.
through its Secretary.
2. Chairman,
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Prakash Gadh, Station Road, Offi. Aliwar
Jang Marg, Bandra (East)
Mumbai 400 051.
3. State of Maharashtra,
through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mrs. G. Venkatraman with G. Belsare, Advocates for Petitioners.
Ms. M.A. Barabde, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent State.
Mr. R.E. Moharir, Advocate for Respondent Electricity Board.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Employees of erstwhile Maharashtra State Electricity Board, who
Judgment wp1174.94
are already superannuated are seeking implementation of Board resolution
dated 31.12.1996. By that resolution, the Board has resolved to make
applicable pension scheme by replacing C.P.F. to employees with it after
01.04.1974. Benefit is to be extended from 01.04.1993.
2. Ms. Venkatraman, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners
argues that though not necessary, this resolution was sent to the State
Government and then the matter went unattended. Our attention is invited
to orders dated 08.0-8.2001, where statement was made by the State
Government in this respect and recorded by this Court. The communication
by State Government dated 16.02.2009 is also read out to explain that the
State Government has refused to shoulder burden and the said Board is now
trifurcated into Distribution Company, Generation Company and
Transmission Company, which are supposed to bear the necessary
expenditure. Contention is, thereafter though petitioners and some unions
have insisted for early decision, no cognizance thereof has been taken.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that one more petition i.e.
Writ Petition No. 2722/1995 is also listed today for hearing. Petitioner
therein and few petitioners in other matters have already expired during the
pendency of this challenge. She therefore, request for expediting the
Judgment wp1174.94
decision.
4. Shri Moharir, learned counsel appearing for all three successor
companies or erstwhile board, demonstrates through earlier history how
C.P.F. became an accepted condition of service. According to him, in this
situation, approval of State Government was necessary and it has been
declined in 2009. Thereafter, various Trade Unions of Workers have made
attempts to expedite the process, but, in absence of State Government
support and security, pension scheme cannot be made applicable. He
contends that thus petitions are liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondent State
Government submits that on 16.02.2009 itself State Government has
distanced itself from the issue.
6. We do not wish to go into the merits of the controversy at this
stage. Admittedly CPF is a condition of service even today. Change in
service conditions has been proposed by the Board on 31.12.1996. The
Board by passing resolution could not have brought in any change and
resolution needs implementation. No order passed by the "Chief Executive
Officer" with such Board implementing that resolution has been pointed out.
Judgment wp1174.94
Not only this, Board itself has thought it fit to place the controversy for
consideration of State Government. Reading of resolution shows that Board
then found itself financially sound to support the pension scheme. However,
the board resolved in a particular fashion and that was never questioned.
The State Government has taken a decision on said resolution or proposal
contained therein on 16.02.2009. Thus, the proposal remained pending
with the State Government for over 13 years.
7. During this long period, under administrative exigencies M.S.E.B.
has been trifurcated and function of generation, transmission and
distribution are now handed over to three separate entities, who are
successors and impleaded as party respondents in present matter.
8. Papers further show that even on 05.03.2009, meeting in this
respect was conducted between workers of these three companies and
management. Document at page no.199 dated 31.08.2010 is
communication by distribution company to the State Government in this
respect. In it, reference is made to meeting with the Principal Secretary
(Energy) dated 03.09.2007 and proposal therein to extend security by State
Government. We need not again go into the details thereof because
communication of denial/rejection by the State Government is after this. As
Judgment wp1174.94
already noted above, it is issued in February, 2009.
9. In this situation, we find that interest of justice can be met with by
directing respondent nos. 4 to 7 to expedite the decision on implementation
of Board resolution dated 31.12.1996.
10. If the purpose or object behind framing such scheme and
substituting CPF by it, is to be achieved, it is apparent that time bound steps
are necessary. Already period of about 21 years is lost in the court. We
therefore, direct these companies to hold necessary discussions and to take a
responsible decision as early as possible, and in any case within a period of
three months from today.
11. With these directions and with liberty to parties to approach again
if any cause of action therefor arises, we dispose of the Petitions. No cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
