[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport ... vs Pradeep Kumar Mishra on 3 December, 2025
1
MP Nos. 4216/2025, 4217/2025 & 4220/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 3rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4216 of 2025
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Versus
BHAGWANDAS SHILPI
WITH
MISC. PETITION No. 4217 of 2025
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Versus
BALKRISHNA AWASTHI
MISC. PETITION No. 4220 of 2025
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
AND OTHERS
Versus
PRADEEP KUMAR MISHRA
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Hritvik Dixit - Advocate with Shri Rohit Sharma - Advocate (through
VC) for the petitioners in all the petitions.
Shri Shubham Mishra - Advocate for the respondents in all the petitions.
..........................................................................................................
ORDER
MP Nos. 4216/2025, 4217/2025 & 4220/2025
By way of these petitions, the orders passed by the Executing Court
admitting and registering the Execution application so also dismissing the
objection as to maintainability of the Execution proceedings and ordering
issuance of the arrest warrant against the Officers of the State has been put
to challenge.
2. The counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submitted that a civil
revision was filed on the identical assertions and this Court has disposed of
the civil revision with certain directions to the Executing Court that the
Executing Court shall not quantify any amount towards 5th Pay
Commission benefits during the course of Execution proceedings and shall
restrict itself only to the question of payment of dearness allowance as per
award of the Industrial Tribunal.
3. This Court in CR No.1073 of 2025 has passed the following order :-
"By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated
24.09.2019 and 26.07.2025, whereby the objections of the petitioner in the
execution proceedings have been rejected and arrest warrant to secure
presence of Principal Secretary of Transport Department has been issued
as a consequence thereto.
2. The execution proceedings are going on in terms of execution
application Annexure A-8, whereby the respondent workman has
complained of non-compliance of settlement dated 03.09.1988 between the
Representative Union and Management of MPSRTC, which was registered
on 13.06.1988 and the said settlement, executed under provision of M.P.
Industrial Relations Act is stated to be not complied with in the matter of
non-grant of pay parity with the employees of the State Government in Vth
Pay Commission scales.
MP Nos. 4216/2025, 4217/2025 & 4220/2025
3. The issue involved in the present case have already been settled up to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The aforesaid settlement gave right to the
Corporation employees to receive revised pay scale at par with employees
of the State Government. However, when the said settlement was not
complied with, which was entered into between the Corporation and the
Representative Union, i.e. M.P. Transport Workers Federation, then a
notice of change was given as per Section 31(2) of MPIR Act on
19.11.1998 and upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Deputy
Labour Commissioner, Indore in exercise of powers under Section 10(1) of
the Industrial Disputes Act made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal.
The reference was answered by the Industrial Tribunal in the following
manner:-
"(i) The employees of the MP State Road Transport Corporation
are entitled to the dearness allowance as per the "Memorandum of
Settlement" dated03.02.1998 (Annexure P/4) from01.01.1998. In
other words, they are entitled to the dearness allowance at par with
the employees of the State Government increased from time to time
after 01.01.1998 for "pre-revised pay scales" (Scales prevalent
before the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission-were
accepted for the employees of the- State Government). The
employees of the 'Corporation who have been given the "benefit of
the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2005 would be entitled to the
increased dearness allowance as per the "Memorandum of
Settlement" dated03.02.1988 (Annexure P/4) up to the time they
were in service. The dearness allowance in terms of this Award
shall be paid to the employees of the Corporation in four equal
quarterly installments in one year.
(ii) The employees of the Corporation are not entitled to the pay
scales recommended by Fifty Pay Commission and they are also
not entitled to any other relief."
4. From a perusal of the aforesaid award passed by the Industrial
Tribunal, it is evident that the Industrial Tribunal held that employees of
the Corporation are not entitled to pay scales recommended by the Fifth
Pay Commission and they are also not entitled to any other relief, apart
from what was granted in para (i) of the operative portion.
5. The aforesaid award of the Industrial Tribunal was not challenged by
the employees or by the Union, but was challenged by the MPSRTC in the
matter of grant of dearness allowance and the Division Bench of this
Court at Indore in W.P. No.1247 of 2007 dismissed the petition of the
Corporation and upheld the order of the Industrial Tribunal, whereby as
per point No. (ii), it had been held by the Industrial Tribunal that
employees of MPSRTC would not be entitled to pay scales recommended
by Fifth Pay Commission.
MP Nos. 4216/2025, 4217/2025 & 4220/2025
6. The aforesaid matter then went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the
Hon'ble Apex Court passed the following order:-
"We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment for the simple reason that in terms of the agreement it
was agreed between the M.P. StateRoad Transport Corporation, the
appellant No.1 herein and the Prantiya Rajya Parivahan
Karmachari Sangh-respondent No.1 that the same amount of
dearness allowance which is payable to the State Government
employees would be payable to the employees of the M.P. State
Road Transport Corporation. It is not in dispute that even those
employees of the State Government who have not opted for the
revised pay scale recommended by the Fifth Central Pay
Commission, are being paid the old pay scale but the amount of
dearness allowance is higher than what is being paid to the
employees who have opted for the pay scale given by the Fifth
Central Pay Commission. As the employees of the M.P. State Road
Corporation having not been given the benefit of the revised pay
scale recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission, they are
being paid the old Fourth Central Pay Commission payscale,
however they are entitled for the dearness allowance which is
payable to the employees of the State Government who are getting
the old pay scales.
It is pertinent to mention here that the Division Bench of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified regarding the payment
of the increased dearness allowance to the employees who have
opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme during their service period
before having retired voluntarily.
Payment of arrears of dearness allowance be made to the existing
employees as well as those who have retired voluntarily, till the
time they were in service, by making an advertisement in the
newspaper inviting applications from the employees and the
employees who have already retired voluntarily. Appellant No.1
shall get the details from the employees and shall verify from the
records and make necessary payments within two months.
The amount deposited before the Industrial Tribunal shall be
returned to the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation-appellant
No.1 for disbursement."
7. Therefore, it is clear that the question of non-applicability of Fifth Pay
Commission pay scales, which had been answered by the Industrial
Tribunal after taking note of the settlement of the year 1988 went
unchallenged by the employees and the litigation went up to the Hon'ble
Apex Court at the instance of Corporation, which was aggrieved by that
part of the reference answered by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the
MP Nos. 4216/2025, 4217/2025 & 4220/2025
Industrial Tribunal held the employees are entitled to parity in dearness
allowance with State Government employees as per IVth Pay Commission.
8. Thereafter, another writ petition came to be filed before the Indore
Bench of this Court being W.P. No.8822 of 2013 and the Indore bench of
this Court held as under:-
"The order passed by the Apex Court makes it very clear that
employees of M.P. State Road Transport Corporation have not been
given the benefit of revised pay-scale as recommended by the 5th
pay commission and, therefore, the award passed by the tribunal
deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.
In light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court, it is held that
the employees of M.P. Road Transport Corporation will be entitled
for the same dearness allowance, which was payable to the
employees of State Government, who were getting the old pay
scale.
Resultantly, in light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court,
the petitioner corporation does not have any choice except to grant
dearness relief, which was applicable at the time of VRS to the
employees by the corporation at par with the employees of State
Government (scale of 4th pay commission) as the same has not
been done.
Resultantly, the respondents shall recalculate the VRS amount by
taking into account the pay-scale of old 4th central pay commission
and the dearness allowance which was given to the employees of
State Government at the time VRS was granted to the employees by
the corporation.
The exercise of recalculating the amount and making the payment
of the amount in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court to each and every individual through bank account be
concluded within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order.
Respondents have also paid the gratuity to the employees of the
corporation by taking into account the pay which was given at the
time they were granted VRS, meaning thereby, the dearness
allowance, which was being paid by the State Government (pay
scale of 4th pay commission) was not taken into account while
granting gratuity. Respondents shall also recalculate the gratuity in
respect of employees, who have not been granted the pay-scale
keeping in view the old 4th pay commission and at the relevant
point of time, the dearness allowance, which was applicable to the
employees of State Government, who were getting old pay scale,
the exercise of calculating the gratuity amount and payment be also
MP Nos. 4216/2025, 4217/2025 & 4220/2025
done within 4 months and the amount be deposited in the bank
accounts of the employees.
Shri Moyal has fairly stated before this Court that the matter has
attained finality in light of the judgment delivered by the Apex
Court.
The petition stands allowed. The award stands modified to the
extent as aforesaid. The employees shall be entitled for the similar
on has been extended to identically placed person by the Hon'ble
supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.321/2013.
9. This order was also put to challenge before the Hon'ble Apex Court and
the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.32869 of 2017 directed that the
question of applicability of Fifth Pay Commission is something, which has
to be decided by the State Government and the MPSRTC and therefore
passed the following order:-
"We direct the State Government and the M.P. State Road Transport
Corporation to take a considered decision, whether it would extend
the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission, as prayed in the present
petition, unfettered by the order passed by the High Court.
Let a considered decision be taken in this regard, at least for the
existing employees, within a period of six months"
10. Thereafter, the State Government has taken a decision on 15.01.2021
and refused to grant benefit of Fifth Pay Commission to employees of
MPSRTC (now renamed as MPRTC after bifurcation of erstwhile Madhya
Pradesh into Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh).
11. The said order dated 15.01.2021 has not been set aside by any Court
or authority till date and there is no other authoritative pronouncement by
any Court that order dated 15.01.2021 denying benefit of Fifth Pay
Commission salaries to employees of MPRTC is bad in law.
12. Therefore, it is clear that the Executing Court by not taking note of
these judicial pronouncements, and in mechanically issuing the arrest
warrant against the officers of the State Government has committed an
error in law, which requires to be corrected by this Court in exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction.
13. Though this Court intended to close the execution proceedings, but in
view of a possibility that the payment of Dearness Allowance on IVth Pay
Commission scales might not been fully made, this Court issues appritae
directions to the Executing Court.
14. Consequently, the order dated 26.07.2025 and the consequential order
issuing arrest warrant against the officers of the State Government are set
aside. The Executing Court is directed to quantify the amount, if any, only
in respect of payment of dearness allowance as per the award of the
MP Nos. 4216/2025, 4217/2025 & 4220/2025
Industrial Tribunal and shall not quantify any amount towards Fifth Pay
Commission benefits, because that issue has already been closed and the
settlement can now not be given a life, which has already been
extinguished by the Industrial Tribunal vide its award as quoted in this
order, and which stood upheld up to the Hon'ble Apex Court.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed.
16. Needless to say that if the petitioner or any other employee or ex-
employee is aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.2021, then the said person
is always at liberty to challenge the said order as per the provisions of law
and this order will not come in the way."
4. As the present petitions involve similar issues, therefore the present
petitions are also disposed of in similar terms and the order passed in CR.
No.1073 of 2025 will apply mutatis mutandis to the present petitions also.
The petitions stand disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN)
nks JUDGE
