Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 589 (MP)

Durga Prasad v. M. P. Power Transmission Co. Ltd.

2024-08-30

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2024
ORDER 1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming relief to revise his Pension Payment Order/Gratuity Payment Order (in short as PPO/GPO) by counting the period of 'Apprenticeship' as his qualifying services w.e.f. 14.6.1979 to 31.10.2011 i.e. total service period of 32 years 4 months 18 days, whereas the respondents have issued the PPO/GPO by counting his qualifying service w.e.f. 14.6.1980. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner being Diploma Holder in Electrical Engineering was appointed as 'Technician Apprentice' (under the Apprentice Act, 1961) under the M.P. Electricity Board Service on a fixed stipend of Rs.450/- per month and accordingly he reported and joined duty on 14.6.1979 by entering into a contract with the erstwhile M.P. State Electricity Board as per the terms and conditions contained in Annexure-I and Schedule-I & II. The following terms and conditions were mentioned in the appointment letter of the petitioner as Apprentice which are reproduced as under:- (i) The appointment is subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in Annexure-I, Schedule-I & II enclosed. (ii) The Technician Apprentice should report for training on or before 15-6-79 failing which it will be presumed that he is not interested in the offer and action to cancel this office order will be taken which may please be noted. No extension of time in joining the training will be given on any account whatsoever. (iii) He will have to produce at the time of joining a certificate of his Diploma qualification for verification by the Controlling Officer to whom he is directed to report for training. (iv) He will have to execute the Agreement Bond in the enclosed prescribed form (Annexure -II). He will also have to execute the Contract Bond, Schedule-I, II and App-5 form (in triplicate) in the enclosed prescribed forms (Annexure-III, Schedule-I & III) and submit the above documents to the Controlling Officer at the time of joining. (v) He will be entitled to draw the stipend only after the agreement bond and Contract Bond in the prescribed form as referred to above are executed by him and accepted by this office. 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer in the time pay scale of Rs.665-20-745-22-883-25-1008 on provisional basis. The said appointment order was subject to the following conditions:- i) That, he has completed period of training without availing extra ordinary leave. 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub-Engineer in the time pay scale of Rs.665-20-745-22-883-25-1008 on provisional basis. The said appointment order was subject to the following conditions:- i) That, he has completed period of training without availing extra ordinary leave. ii) That he will leave to pass the departmental examination in accounts and in such other subjects as may be prescribed in maximum three attempts within specified period. iii) That the appointment is subject to medical fitness and satisfactory verification of character and antecedents. iv) That the appointment of Shri D.P. Temle is governed by the terms and conditions framed by the Board under section 79(C) of Electricity Supply Act, 1948 as amended from time to time. v) That the appointment will be on probation for a period of two years and would be liable enhanced at the discretion of the Board for a further period of one year. vi) That the services of appointee during the period of probation or during the intended period of probation shall liable to be terminated without any notice and without a signing any reason. vii) That on expiry of the probation period, the appointed shall become a temporary employee of the Board till he is confirmed by a specified order. viii) That during the further period of temporary service, the services of the employee shall liable to be terminated by the Board by giving one month's notice or payment of one month's salary (including allowances) in lieu thereof without a signing any reason. 4. It is argued that the respondents have not counted the apprentice period for calculation of pension which is evident from Annexure P/5 where the date of appointment has been mentioned 14.6.1980 and the retirement date is mentioned 31.10.2011. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Clause (iii) of Annexure-I (Annexure R/1) the period of training including that of apprenticeship will be 2 years and, therefore, the apprentice period has to be treated as a training period and as per rule 22 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) rules 1976 (in short the rules, 1976), the training period including apprentice period has to be considered as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. 6. 6. Per contra counsel for the respondent submitted that it is admitted fact that the petitioner was granted pensionary benefits by counting his qualifying services w.e.f. 14.06.1980 till his date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2011 which clearly establishes the fact that the period of training was counted by the respondent as qualifying service and accordingly all the pensionary benefits were extended to the petitioner. So far the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the period of apprenticeship should also have been considered as per Clause (iii) of Annexure-I (Annexure R/1) is misconceived. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment of Technician Apprentice, the appointment was for the period of 2 years under which first year as 'Apprentice' and further one year period as 'Diploma Training'. Accordingly, the apprentice first year of apprentice has not been counted in qualifying service whereas the further one year period as Diploma training has been counted for the purpose of pension. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 8. The sole question crops up for consideration that whether the period rendered by the petitioner as Apprentice could have been counted as qualifying services for the purpose of calculation of pension. It is not in dispute that the pension to the petitioner is governed by the Rules, 1976. As per rule 2 of the rules 1976, the same applies to every government servant appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh and who are borne on establishments not declared as non-pensionable. The rule 2 is reproduced as under:- 2. Application.-(i) Save as otherwise provided in these rules, these rules shall apply to every Government servant appointed to civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh and who are borne on establishments not declared as non-pensionable. (ii) These rules shall not apply to- (a) persons in a work-charged establishment; (b) persons in casual and daily rated employment; (c) persons paid from contingencies; (d) persons entitled to the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund; (e)persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise; and (f)persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by any other rules for the time being in force. (g) Government servants appointed on or after 1st January 2005 to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, either temporarily or permanently. 9. From the terms and conditions of the appointment letter dated 29.5.1979 and the terms and conditions contained in Annexure R/1, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed as Technician Apprentice under the Apprentice Act, 1961 on the conditions which have already been enumerated. Clause (iii) of Annexure-I (Annexure R/1) reads as under:- (iii) The period of training including that of apprenticeship will be 2 years. The one year period of training as a Diploma Trainee may be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the Board. During the training period the services of the candidate can be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason therefore. 10. On considering of the aforesaid Clause (iii), it is crystal clear that the appointment of Technician Apprentice was for a period of two years under which the first year as 'Apprentice' and further one year period as 'Diploma Trainee'. It is relevant to mention here rule 12(2) and rule 15 of the rule 1976 :- "Subject to the provisions of these Rules, qualifying service of Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity." Rule 15 of the Rules, 1976 which clearly provides that "Service as an apprentice shall not qualify, except in cases where it qualifies under the pension rules applicable at the time when the service was rendered." 11. In view of the aforesaid provision of rule 12(2) and 15 of the rules, it is crystal clear that the petitioner's contention that apprentice period should be counted as qualifying service for pension cannot be countenanced and he was rightly granted pensionary benefits by counting his services w.e.f. 14.6.1980 to 31.10.2011. Even otherwise an apprentice appointed under the Apprentice Act, 1961 is considered a learner rather than an employee. He does not have a right to regular employment or absorption. He has no vested right to employment or regularisation after completing apprenticeship. In this regard a reference may be made to the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager L.I.C. (2004) 8 SCC 387 . He does not have a right to regular employment or absorption. He has no vested right to employment or regularisation after completing apprenticeship. In this regard a reference may be made to the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Senior Divisional Manager L.I.C. (2004) 8 SCC 387 . The status of apprentices is primarily that of learners engaged in training rather than employees with full labor rights. They are afforded certain protections under the Apprentices Act, 1961, but these do not extend to rights typically associated with employment, such as job security or entitlement to wages. The legal framework surrounding apprenticeships emphasizes their role in skill development rather than as a pathway to permanent employment. 12. In view of the aforesaid and as per the rule 2 of rules 1976, the petitioner as apprentice cannot be held to be appointed to a civil service and post and, therefore, the period rendered by the petitioner as apprenticeship cannot be considered and included as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and, therefore, the respondents have rightly granted the pensionary benefits by counting his services w.e.f. 14.6.1980 to 31.10.2011. Thus, it is held that the apprentice period cannot be counted in qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The petition being devoid of merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.