Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jagdish Soni vs Department Of Cooperatives on 22 November, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 22 nd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2077 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
JAGDISH SONI S/O LATE SHRI SHANKARLAL JI SONI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE, KRISHI UPAJ
MANDI SAMITI, TARANA, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRATEEK PATWARDHAN - ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT
OF COOPERATIVES, MINISTRY, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES-CUM-
MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGIONAL SOYABEAN
PRODUCER'S COOPERATIVE UNION LIMITED,
NAGZIRI, UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MADHYA PRADESH STATE AGRICULTURE
MARKETING BOARD, ADDRESS: 26, ARERA
HILLS, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) THROUGH
ITS MANAGING DIRECTO.
4. SECRETARY, KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,
TARANA, DISTRICT UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 - STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH BY SHRI
SUDHANSHU VYAS - ADVOCATE.
RESPONDENT NO.3 - MP STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD BY
SHRI ABHINAV DHANODKAR - ADVOCATE.
RESPONDENT NO.4 - KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, TARANA, DISTRICT
UJJAIN BY SHRI MAHESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY - ADVOCATE.)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAMESH
CHANDRA PITHAWE
Signing time: 11/24/2023
11:22:02 AM
2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of
Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to grant him the
benefit of 5th, 6th & 7th Pay Commissions.
2. The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 15.09.1987 (Annexure P/1)
in Regional Soyabean Producer's Cooperative Union Limited, Ujjain
(respondent No.2). Vide order dated 13.05.2008 (Annexure P/2) the
respondents have sent the petitioner on deputation to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Tarana, District Ujjain (respondent No.4) and thereafter vide order dated
14.05.2008, the petitioner was relieved to join at Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti,
Tarana, District Ujjain.
3. The petitioner was paid the salary on the basis of recommendation of 4th
Pay Commission. The petitioner submitted representations to the respondents
for grant of benefit of 5th & 6th Pay Commissions. Respondent No.3 vide
order dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure P/3) has decided to extend the benefit of 5th
and 6th Pay Commissions to the employees of Oil Federation, who are working
on deputation in the Board; and extend the benefit of Madhya Pradesh Pay
Revision Rules of 1998 as well as of 2009. When the said benefit was not
extended to the petitioner, he has filed the present petition before this Court.
4. Similarly placed persons appointed in Oil Federation / Boards were sent
o n deputation to various Government Departments and they were granted the
benefit of 5th and 6th pay commission. Later on, the State Government
withdrew the same which became the subject matter of various writ petitions
before this court. One of the writ petition bearing W.P. No. 5680/2009(s)
(Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & others)
was decided o n 21.07.2011 in favour of the petitioner and thereafter Writ
Appeal filed by the State Govt. has been dismissed and thereafter the SLP
No.31673/2011 has also been dismissed. By placing reliance over the
aforesaid decision, one writ petition filed by Yashwant Aphle had also been
allowed vide order dated 26.08.2013 passed in W.P. No.7725/2009 and
recovery of amount was quashed. The order passed in the case of Yashwant
Aphle (supra) is reproduced as under -
"Petitioner employees of M.P. State Cooperative Oil Seed Growers
Federation on deputation to Zila Panchayat Hoshangabad vide this
petition while seeking quashment of orders dated 24.6.2009 and
11.8.2009; whereby recovery has been effected in respect of certain pay
extended to the petitioner in lieu of the fixation as per Vth Pay
Commission further seeks direction to the respondents to extend the
benefit of Vth Pay Commission.
At the outset it is urged that the issue raised in this petition has been
answered in W.P.No.5680/2009 (s) Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan and
another Vs. State of M.P and others decided on 23.3.2011.
The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents
to grant the benefit of Vth and VI th Pay Commission. The State
Government aggrieved by said order preferred Writ Appeal
No.361/2011 which was dismissed on 27.7.2011.The Division Bench
while dismissing the writ appeal observed:
"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 respondent 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 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 Vs. 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.
An SLP (Civil) No.31673/2011 preferred there against was dismissed
on 15.4.2013. Since the issue raised in this petition is similar to that
Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan and another Vs. state of M.P and
others (supra) while quashing the order of recovery dated 2.7.2009
the respondents are directed to abide by judgment/ decision rendered
in Dinkar Pratap Singh Chouhan and another Vs. State of M.P and
others (supra).
The petition is allowed. There shall be no costs."
5. A co-ordinate bench of this court has already held that employees of
Oil Federation during deputation period are entitled for the benefit of 5th and
6th pay commission. Admittedly, the said benefit was not extended to the
petitioner, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of 5th & 6th Pay Commission.
6. The Apex Court in the case of Bihar State Beverages Corporation
Limited and others v. Naresh Kumar Mishra and others reported in
(2019) 5 SCC 110 has held, as under:
"23. Now, so far as the quashing and setting aside the Resolution dated
27-3-2012 by which the Corporation resolved to pay salary to the
employees of the Corporation as is being paid in the parent Board/parent
organization is concerned, it is required to be noted that it is not in dispute
that the respective original writ petitioners are on deputation from different
Boards/organizations. Therefore, if the Resolution dated 27-3-2012 is
permitted to be implemented, in that case, there shall be disparity in the
pay scale/salary of the employees of the Corporation doing the
same/similar work. There may be different pay scales/salaries in the
respective parent organizations. However, when they are working with
the Corporation and doing the similar work, they have to be paid the
salary which is paid to other employees doing the same/similar work. It is
not in dispute that the employees working on different posts in the
Corporation are doing the same/similar work. Therefore, the Division
Bench of the High Court has rightly applied the "principle of equal pay for
equal work" and has rightly quashed and set aside the Resolution dated
27-3-2012. 27. Now, so far as the impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court directing the appellant Corporation to grant pay scale
to the respondents herein, original writ petitioners as per the 6th PRC is
concerned, it is required to be noted that, as such, the appellant
Corporation itself took a conscious decision in the year 2010 to grant the
benefit of 6th PRC to the employees working with the Corporation.
However, on the advice of the Finance Department that the Corporation
may grant the benefit of 6th PRC to their permanent employees and not
to the employees on deputation, the Corporation thereafter took a
decision not to grant the benefit of the pay scale as per the 6th PRC. As
rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court, the advice by the
Finance Department was non-application of mind, inasmuch as so far as
the Corporation is concerned, there is not a single employee appointed by
the Corporation on permanent basis and the entire staff is either on
deputation or on contract basis from other Boards/organizations.
Therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the
appellant Corporation to grant the pay scale to the respondent, original
writ petitioners as per the 6th PRC so long as they continue to work with
the appellant Corporation and as and when they are repatriated, in that
case, they shall be governed by the pay scale paid to the employees in the
parent Board/organization."
7. Hence, the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to extend the
benefit of 5th, 6th & 7th Pay Commissions to the petitioner as also to pay the
arrears within a period of 90 days from production of certified copy of this
order.
Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed off.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
rcp
