D.P. Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 20621 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

D.P. Ojha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 December, 2023

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                       1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                           ON THE 6 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
                                          WRIT PETITION No. 12034 of 2015

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    D.P. OJHA S/O SHRI B.P. OJHA, AGED ABOUT 57
                                YEARS, PROJECT ECONOMIST JILA PANCHAYAT
                                HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    SHARAD NILOSEY S/O SHRI V.C NILOSEY, AGED
                                ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSIT. PROJECT
                                OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT HARDA DISTT. ASSIT.
                                PROJECT OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT HARDA
                                DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    S.P SINGH YADAV S/O LATE SHRI YADAV RAM
                                SINGH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                PROJECT OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT HARDA
                                DISTT. PROJECT OFFICER JILA PANCHAYAT
                                HARDA DISTT. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SMT. JUNE CHAUDHARI - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SMT.
                          JAYALAKSHMI AIYER WITH SHRI SHIKHAR JAT - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SECRETARY
                                DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL
                                DEVELOPMENT    MANTRALAYA,     VALLABH
                                BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    COMMISSIONER PANCHAYATI RAJ INSTITUTION
                                ACCOUNTING    SOFTWARE   (PANCHLEKHA) 1,
                                ARERA HILLS, TILAN SANGH PRISAR BHOPAL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    CHIEF ENGINEER JILA PANCHAYAT HARDA
                                DISTT. HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    PARISAMAPAK   RAJYA  TILHAN UTPADAK
                                SEHKARI SANGH MARYADIT ARERA HILLS,
                                BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MANOJ NAIR
Signing time: 12/9/2023
1:17:34 PM
                                                             2

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
                          (SHRI ADITYA KHANDEKAR - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

This is a petition assailing the order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure- P/1) and order dated 13.07.2015 (Annexure-P/3).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are originally employee of the M.P. State Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred to as OILFED).

The OILFED, on account of acute financial crunch became defunct, and therefore, numbers of his employees sent to different undertaking of the State Government as well as its department. The issue pertaining to extension of

benefits of Vth and VIth pay commission to the employees who were sent on deputation to different department of the State Government came for consideration before this Court. In the case of Dinkar Pratap singh Chouhan and Anr. vs. State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P.(S) No.5680/2009) , the Gwalior Bench of this Court, found that the employees of OILFED who were sent on

deputation were entitled for Vth and VIth pay commission at par with the employees of the State Government. The order passed by Gwalior Bench of this Court in the case of Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra) was affirmed by the Division Bench, as writ appeal filed vide W.A. No.361/2011 was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.07.2011. The order passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra) was further relied by this Court in an order

dated 15.05.2013 passed in W.P. No.8607/2009(S). The present petitioner,

however confronted with the impugned order by which, the recovery has been ordered by the respondents on the ground that the present petitioners were not

entitled for benefits of Vth and VIth pay commission. Assailing the order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure-P/1) and order dated 13.07.2015 (Annexure-P/3), this petition is filed by the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the controversy has now been conclusively decided in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra), and therefore, the impugned orders of recovery are unsustainable. It is also contended by the counsel that number of employees have already been extended this benefits. In the other cases, the contempt petitions were filed by employees and the

respondents therein themselves sought time to extend the benefits of Vth and

VIth pay commission to the employees, and therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to take recourse to a discriminatory action on the strength of the order impugned which deserves to be dismissed.

4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the State contends that the recovery was justified in view of the circular issued by the Department of General Administrations dated 07.07.1999 which has been brought on record as Annexure-R/3/1. The counsel for State while taking this Court to paragraph 4 of

the circular submits that it was decided not to extend benefits of Vth and VIth

pay commission to the employees who were sent on deputation to different department of the State Government, and therefore, taking into consideration the said circular, a complaint was taken cognizance of, which ensued in conduct of an inquiry. Upon conclusion of inquiry, it was found that the present

petitioners were not entitled for the benefits of Vth and VIth pay commission.

Therefore, counsel submits that the orders impugned require no interference.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the OILFED is impleaded as a formal party, and therefore, it is not a contesting party.

6. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it reveals this Court in the case of Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan

(supra), considered the aspect of extension of benefits of Vth and VIth pay commission to the employees of M.P. OILFED who were sent on deputation to different department of the State Government and ultimately, this Court vide order dated 23.03.2011 passed in W.P. No.5680/2009 held that the employees of M.P. OILFED who were sent on deputation to different department of the

State Government were also entitled for Vth and VIth pay commission. The order passed by the Single Bench was assailed before the Division Bench by the State by filing a writ appeal vide W.A. No.361/2011. The said writ appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.07.2011. The Division Bench while dismissing the appeal held in paragraphs 4 and 5 as under.

"4. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the respondents-employees were sent on deputation on the terms and conditions fixed by the Government. Subsequently, the General Administration Department clarified that the respondents-employees shall be entitled the D.A. and other allowances at par with the Government employees. The Government also sanctioned the post against which respondents. employees are

working. It is also a fact that the appellant-department, M.P. State Cooperative Oil Seed Growers Federation, has become defunct and there is no possibility to send the respondents-employees back to their parent department. Virtually, the respondents employees have been absorbed in their present post of deputation. In such circumstances, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge that the respondents employees are entitled the benefits of 5th and 6th Pay Commission's recommendations is in accordance with law.

5. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/State has submitted that the respondents employees are entitled salary as per the salary they were receiving in their parent department. In support of his contention learned Government Advocate relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others v. Vinod Mohan Shrivastava, ILR (2008) MP 1869. However, the aforesaid argument cannot be accepted because the respondents-employees were sent on deputation as per the norms and conditions fixed by the Government. Apart from this, there is no more the parent department of the respondents employees and the parent department has become defunct. Hence, the respondents-employees are working under the control of the State Government. Hence, they are entitled for the same benefit."

8. A perusal of the decision of this Court in the case of Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra) makes it abundantly clear that there is no confusion or scintilla of doubt that the employees of M.P. OILFED who were sent on deputation to different department of State Government were also held entitled for benefits of V and VI pay commission in parity with the employees of the State Government. Therefore, the said issue having been decided conclusively, no order of recovery could have been issued against the petitioners, and therefore, the respondents were unjustified in passing the orders impugned dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure-P/1) and order dated 13.07.2015 (Annexure-P/3).

9. Resultantly, in the light of order passed by this Court in the case o f Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra), the orders impugned passed by the respondents stand quashed.

10. Any amount recovered on the strength of impugned orders dated

01.07.2015 (Annexure-P/1) and order dated 13.07.2015 (Annexure-P/3) shall be reimbursed to the petitioners within a period 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order, failing which the same shall incur interest @6% per annum.

11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn