Summary
Employees of dissolved electricity co-operative societies absorbed into the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board were held entitled to pension from the Board, the Court invoking Article 142 to avoid discrimination between similarly placed employees after a Full Bench of the High Court had denied pension. However, under Rules 3(p), 12(2) and 13(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, service rendered in the societies before absorption does not count as qualifying service, so pension runs from the date of absorption.
Issues
- Whether employees of the co-operative societies absorbed into the MPSEB are entitled to pension as MPSEB employees or are governed by the terms of absorption providing for pension and gratuity under the societies' rules.
- If entitled, whether service rendered in the societies before absorption counts towards qualifying service for pension.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaGiven the long-pending and multiple proceedings, with some absorbed employees already receiving pension under a final judgment while others faced total denial under the Full Bench ruling, the Court decided the appeals by invoking Article 142 so as to formulate uniform relief and avoid disparity among similarly situated employees. (¶¶ 17, 19, 23)
- Rules 3(p), 12(2) and 13(1), Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) RulesRule 3(p) defines qualifying service as the period between joining pensionable service under the State Government and retirement; Rule 12(2) commences it from the date of taking charge of the post first held under the State; Rule 13(1) excludes service whose duties and pay are not regulated by the Government. Service in the societies, not being under the State Government or governed by its rules, cannot be counted; pension is admissible from the date of absorption. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Held
- The litigation begun by the Bijli Karamchari Sangh in W.P. No. 1151 of 2005, in which pensionary benefits were directed for the absorbed employees, attained finality up to the Supreme Court before the Full Bench judgment; reopening the relief granted on the basis of the later Full Bench decision would be unfair and unwarranted, and that relief is binding and must be extended to the employees it covered. (¶ 18)
- Under Panchraj Tiwari, on merger or absorption the original identity of the service ceases and complete functional integration must follow, carrying with it the rights and benefits of the new service. The terms of absorption were further relaxed in Uma Shankar Dwivedi and Brajendra Singh Kushwah, where the State accepted extending benefits on par with MPSEB employees from the date of absorption, and those benefits have been implemented. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- It would be wholly unjust to deny pension to absorbed employees performing the same duties as other MPSEB employees; there cannot be two classes in the same organisation, one with pension and one without, and denial solely on the ground of origin in the societies would be unjust discrimination. All absorbed employees are therefore entitled to pension in the peculiar facts of the case. (¶ 23)
- Qualifying service is governed by Rules 3(p), 12(2) and 13(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, which require service under the State Government regulated by its rules. Service rendered in the societies before absorption was not under the State Government and cannot be counted; the employees are eligible for pension from the date of absorption into the MPSEB. (¶¶ 24, 25)
Result
Appeals allowed to the extent that the appellants shall be paid pension by the MPSEB with effect from their respective dates of absorption; impugned orders modified accordingly. The respondents were directed to implement the directions and pay all arrears of pension within four months. Pending applications disposed of.