Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1 (CHH)

CHAMPA SONI v. STATE OF M. P.

2000-03-25

L.J.SINGH

body2000
ORDER 1. The applicant has filed this petition with a prayer that the services of the applicant be counted from the date of her appointment i.e., 28-7-62 under the provision of M.P. Civil Services Rules, Rule-12 and she be paid retiral benefits for the service of 34 years along with 12% interest of pension and gratuity. 2. The contention of the applicant is that the applicant was appointed as trained 'Dai' in Integrated Women & Child Development Project. The applicant was given benefit of revised pay scale and the applicant was promoted to the post of Gram Sevika on 1-8-67. The applicant was sent for training and was promoted as trained Bal Sevika in the year 1971. She was granted regular increments. The applicant was posted at Narayanpur continuously from 19-11-80 to 19-11-82. The services of the applicant were absorbed vide order dated 2-6-83 Annexure A-2 in the post of Gram Sevika. After absorption the applicant was promoted and was posted as trained Gram Sevika. The applicant was again promoted in the year 1988 and was posted as Supervisor. Her pay was fixed vide Annexure A-3 and the applicant retired on 30-6-97 vide Annexure A-4. The service book of the applicant was prepared on 26-7-62. 3. Further contention of the applicant is that her service has been counted from 10-7-83 i.e. from the date of absorption which is not correct in view of Civil Services Pension Rules, Rule-4. The period of service of the applicant has been counted as 14 years infact it was to be counted from the day the applicant joined her first service. The applicant has also contended that her service should be counted as 34 years. 4. The last contention of the applicant is that Rule 27 of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 has not been followed fully, hence the applicant has filed this petition. 5. The non-applicants have filed their return. Main contention of the non-applicants is that the Social Welfare Advisory Board was not a part of M.P. Govt. and the employees of above department were not government servants. As per non-applicants the applicant became the government servant from 11-7-83, hence her pension has been fixed as per Annexure R-4. 6. Further contention of the non-applicants is that the Jt. Main contention of the non-applicants is that the Social Welfare Advisory Board was not a part of M.P. Govt. and the employees of above department were not government servants. As per non-applicants the applicant became the government servant from 11-7-83, hence her pension has been fixed as per Annexure R-4. 6. Further contention of the non-applicants is that the Jt. Director of Raipur Division is a necessary party in this petition and since he has not been made party, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Further contention of the non-applicants is that the applicant has accepted the amount of her G.P.E and G.I.S. without any protest, so she has no right to challenge the order regarding her pension after a long period. 8. The non-applicants have also contended that since the applicant has accepted her retiral benefits and is being given regular pension, she has foregone her right, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The applicant has filed her rejoinder. As per applicant it is not correct to say that the Social Welfare Advisory Board was not a part of M.P. Govt. The applicant has repeated all those facts which have been mentioned in her petition. As per applicant, since the Jt. Director of Treasuries, Accounts & Pension has been made a party, the petition cannot be dismissed. 10. Further contention of the applicant is that the applicant has accepted the amount given to the applicant after her retirement with a protest vide Annexure A-6 and she is entitled for the benefits of judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, High Court and M.P. S.A.T. 11. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the documents filed by both the parties. 12. The point for consideration before this Tribunal is; "Whether the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed in the petition ?" 13. The following points are undisputed in this petition: (a) The applicant was appointed on 28-7-62 as 'Dai' in the department of Integrated Women & Child Development Project. (b) The service of the applicant was absorbed on 2-6-83 as Gram Sevika vide Annexure A-2. (c) The service of the applicant for the purpose of retiral benefits has been counted by the Govt. from 10-7-83 i. e. the date of absorption of the applicant as Gram Sevika. (b) The service of the applicant was absorbed on 2-6-83 as Gram Sevika vide Annexure A-2. (c) The service of the applicant for the purpose of retiral benefits has been counted by the Govt. from 10-7-83 i. e. the date of absorption of the applicant as Gram Sevika. (d) The service of the applicant has been counted as 14 years and the service rendered by the applicant prior to join as Gram Sevika has not been counted for the purposes of length of her service and hence she has not been given benefit of her entire service. 14. The main contention of the non-applicants is that the applicant became Govt. servant from the date of her absorption i.e. 10-7-83 and prior to that day she was not a Govt. servant of M.P. Govt., hence she was not entitled for the retiral benefits rendered by her in Integrated Women & Child Development Project. 15. In Chander Sain Vs. State of Haryana and Others; 1994 LAB I.C. 801. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that: "Appellant working as Director in Government aided College subsequently taken over by State Government - Appellant retiring 10 years after taking over of School-Entitled to payment of gratuity for service rendered under private management." It has also held by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court that -, "Employee working in private institution - said institution taken over by Government - Entitled to payment of gratuity on retirement for services rendered under private management before take over." 16. In similar case - Rampyari Shukla Vs. Secretary, Central Social Welfare Board, Bhopal and Others; M.P. No. 2120 of 1984, dated 12 October, 1984 published in Vol. 33 - Labour Law Notes - Part 4, October - 88, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. that: "It appears that the petitioner was originally working as a bal-sevikas in the Family and Chiled Welfare Scheme run by the Madhya Pradesh State Social Welfare Board since 6th May, 1960. It fUl1her appears that the said scheme was abolished by the State Government and all balsevikas were absorbed as Gram Sevikas. That is how the services of the petitioner came to be transferred to the department of Social Welfare & Panchayat. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to be benefit of her service with Madhya Pradesh State Social Welfare Board for purposes of pensionary benefits. That is how the services of the petitioner came to be transferred to the department of Social Welfare & Panchayat. The question is whether the petitioner is entitled to be benefit of her service with Madhya Pradesh State Social Welfare Board for purposes of pensionary benefits. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner's services were terminated by the said Board and she was given fresh appointment. Indeed the facts speak otherwise. She was absorbed as Gram Sevika and not appointed afresh, indicating thereby that her earlier post was treated a (s) equivalent, to her present post. In this view of the matter, there is apparently no reason why her entire service should not count for pensionary benefits and these benefits should be calculated and paid acordingly. Even if, a decision on the question was likely to be delayed, there is no reason why she should not have been paid provisional gratuity and pension as per rules. Indeed it is not understood why a decision on such a small matter should take so long a time. Nothing but the culpable neglect on the part of those responsible for taking decision can be the reason." 17. In C.A. Bhakhare Vs. State of M.P. and Others: 1987 MPLJ 509, Hon'ble the High Court of M.P. has held that: "Municipal teacher is entitled to benefit of Provident Fund from beginning of service if absorbed in Government Service." 18. So, looking towards the above cited judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and Hon'ble the High Court, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled for the relief claimed in the petition. 19. It is hereby directed that the entire service of the applicant from 28-7-62 be treated as period of service of the applicant for the purposes of granting her pension and pension be calculated in accordance with law along with the gratuity and all other retiral benefits. Parties to bear their own costs. [Editorial Note:- The above order was challanged before the M.P. High Court which passed following order ill WP. No. 3807 of 2000, decided Oil 14-7-2000] HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Hon'ble Shri Bhawani Singh, C.J. & Shri A.K. Mishra, J. As Per: Bhawani Singh, Chief Justice (Oral) : 1. This petition challenges the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated March 25, 2000 passed in O.A. No. 693 of 1999. 2. No. 3807 of 2000, decided Oil 14-7-2000] HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR Hon'ble Shri Bhawani Singh, C.J. & Shri A.K. Mishra, J. As Per: Bhawani Singh, Chief Justice (Oral) : 1. This petition challenges the order of the State Administrative Tribunal dated March 25, 2000 passed in O.A. No. 693 of 1999. 2. The Respondent No.1 Smt. Champa Soni was trained by the Integrated Women and Child Development Project. Some time later, she was promoted to the post of Gram Sevika. She was sent for training and then promoted as Trained Bal Sevika in 1971. She got regular increments from time to time and was posted at Naryanpur, district Bastar from 19-11-1982. Her services were absorbed in Panchayat and Social Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh on 2-6-1983 (Annex. P2). After absorption, the respondent No.1 was promoted and posted as Trained Gram Sevika and was again promoted to the post of Supervisor in 1988. 3. Claim of the respondent No.1 is that her services should be counted from 28-7-1962 and not from 2-6-1983. The State appears to have calculated the pension of the respondent No. 1 from 2-6-1983 on the ground that the respondent No.1 was absorbed in the State service from this date vide Annex. P 2. Claim has been allowed by the Tribunal which does not satisfy the State, hence this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the respondent No. 1 is not entitled to count her previous service rendered in the Intergrated Women and Child Development Project for the reason that in this Project, her service was not governed by any rules. Further, order dated 2-6-1983 provides that her service is to be counted from the date of joining the Government Department. In addition to these two submissions, learned counsel points out that the respondent No.1 having accepted the conditions of joining the post cannot turn round and claim the service rendered in the previous Department for purposes of pension. Our attention is drawn to item 6 of Annexure. P4 to the petition which is similar to Annex.P2 suggesting that for the purpose of pension, the service would be counted from the date of joining in the Department. 5. Having considered the matter carefully, we are unable to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State. The respondent No.1 was employed in the Integrated Women and Child Development Project. 5. Having considered the matter carefully, we are unable to appreciate the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the State. The respondent No.1 was employed in the Integrated Women and Child Development Project. It is an important Project established by the State, looked after and funded by it. After its abolition, employees are absorbed in the Department of Panchayat and Social Welfare of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The contention that service of the respondent No.1 in the previous Department was not governed by any rules cannot be accepted. It cannot be said that appointment of employees in this Department was illegal and without jurisdiction. If that be so, why the Department was allowed to continue and function by the State which, as said, supervised it and funded it from time to time. It is not understandable why the employees of this Department were asked to become employees in the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department from the date of joining. Further, the conditions on which they were made to join were never shown to them. No option was given to them whether they would join the Department on these conditions. There is no material before us to ascertain that the employees were apprised by these conditions and they accepted them. Even otherwise, they are arbitrary, unreasonable, inequitable and amount to bargaining by a strong employer against the week employees. 6. We are in agreement with the order of the Tribunal that the respondent No.1 is entitled to count her past service for pension with effect from 28-7-1962 till the date of retirement. There is no merit in this petition which is consequently dismissed.