Madhya Pradesh High Court
Akhilesh Kumar Nigam vs Managing Director on 21 April, 2022
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
ON THE 21st OF APRIL, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 10339 of 2020
Between:-
AKHILESH KUMAR NIGAM S/O LATE SHRI J.P.
NIGAM , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
JUNIOR ENGINEER M.P. PURVA KSHETRA VIDYUT
VITRAN CO.LTD. DISTRUBUTION CENTRE
AJAYGARH UNDER EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
(OANDM) DIVISION AGRA MOHALLA PANNA
DIST. PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJEET KUMAR SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER)
AND
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. PURVA KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. SHAKTI BHAWAN
RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (H.R.AND A) POORVA
KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. BLOCK NO. 7
SHAKTI BHAWAN PO VIDYUT NAGAR RAMPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANAGING DIRECTOR M.P. POWER
MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED SHAKTI
BHAWAN, RAMPUR JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND
SCHEME NO. 5 VIJAY NAGAR JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER POORVA KSHETRA
VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. O AND M DIVISON
AGRA MOHALLA PANNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI AMAL PUSHP SHROTI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 AND 5)
(BY SHRI JAI KUMAR PILLAI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT NO.4)
This petition coming for orders on this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Signature Not Verified
SAN India, the petitioner is seeking following reliefs :-
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.04.23 15:46:21 IST
"(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 15-12-14 (Annexure
P-1) so far as it relates to the denial of arrears of salary and denial of
benefits of pension and respondents be further directed to extend the
benefit of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Higher Pay Scale by counting his previous
service which were rendered by the petitioner in the erstwhile
cooperative society with all service benefits including arrears.
(ii) Respondents be further directed to give the benefits of
Pay Regulation 2001 w.e.f. 01-01-2001 and benefits of 6th Pay
Commission w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and respondents been further directed
to convert the E.P.F. Account of the petitioner into the G.P.F.
Account. The respondents be further directed to pay dearness
allowance to the petitioner for the intervening period i.e. 13-08-10 till
24-01-13 with interest and arrears.
(iii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any such
other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the
circumstances of the case."
So far as first relief is concerned, it is an admitted position that this issue is
no more res integra. The same is covered by a decision of Full Bench of this
Court in the case of Managing Director M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran
Company Limited and Others Vs. Sita Ram Patel and others (2019) 4 MPLJ
367 wherein it is held as under:-
"In the light of the aforesaid facts and enunciation of law it is
stated, at the cost of repetition, that the terms and conditions of an
absorbed employee is governed by the terms and conditions of
absorption under a statute/rules/regulations/circular. As per clause (5) of
t h e terms and conditions of absorption, the pension/gratuity was
payable to the employees absorbed in the Board as per rules/regulations
of the society concerned and not of the Board. Further, the said
condition stands approved and affirmed as per paras 4 and 17 of the
Signature Not Verified
judgment passed by the Apex Court in Panchraj Tiwari (supra) as well
SAN
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
as the observations made in the case of Brijendra Singh Kushwaha
BURMAN
Date: 2022.04.23 15:46:21 IST
(supra) and Uma Shankar Dwivedi (supra). In none of the cases it was
decided that erstwhile employees of the society shall be entitled for
pension as per rules/regulations of the Board. Thus the Division Bench
of this Court in Bijali Karmchari Sangh case has not laid down the
correct law and the respondents who are the employees of the erstwhile
RECS shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the absorption
which provide for payment of pension/gratuity as per rules and
regulations of the society concerned and not of the Board and,
therefore, they shall not be entitled to the benefit of pension at par with
the employees of the Board."
In view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision, the petitioner is not entitled to
count the past services for the purpose of computation of pension and other
benefits. So far as relief No.2 is concerned, the petitioner has approached this
Court directly without even filing representation before the competent authority. In
such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to dwell upon the issue with regard
to leave encashment and other reliefs claimed. However, the petitioner would be at
liberty to file a fresh representation in respect of leave encashment and other
benefits before the competent authority who may decide the same in accordance
with the terms and conditions of the absorption as expeditiously as possible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that SLP No. 5632-5653/2020
is pending before the Apex Court and the issue raised herein has not attained
finality.
In view of the above existing scenario, this Court deems it appropriate to
dispose of the matter with the observation that the issue pending before the
Supreme Court if decided in favour of the petitioners and if the petitioners are
found entitled for the benefit then the same should be extended to the petitioners.
For this purpose, the petitioner would not be required to reproach this Court.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)
JUDGE
vinay*
Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR
BURMAN
Date: 2022.04.23 15:46:21 IST
