Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 635 (MP)

R. P. Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2024-09-24

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2024
ORDER : VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J. Regard being held to the similitude of the issue involved in the present case they are being decided by the common order for the sake of convenience, the facts are noted from W.P No.30750/2024. 2. By the instant petition, the petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondent Nos.2&3 to pay remaining Rs.10,00,000/- towards gratuity. Though the prayer is also made for payment of 60 days leave encashment amount but the same has not been pressed during the course of argument and the petition has been confined only to the relief of grant of remaining Rs.10,00,000/- towards gratuity. 3. Draped in brevity, the facts of the case are that the petitioner retired from the post of Deputy Seed Certification Officer on 31/2/2022. He was appointed on the post of Seed Certification Inspector (category 2) in the establishment of respondent Nos.2&3 on 7/10/1985. He was granted permanent status on 30/12/1987. Later he was promoted to the post of Deputy Seed Certification Officer. The petitioners are retired employees prior to 10/4/2023 from the service of respondent Nos.2 & 3. 4. It is argued that the petitioners are entitled for enhanced gratuity amount limit from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- as per the circular dated 26/10/2017 issued by the State Government in terms of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules, 1976), Annexure P-4. The decision of the respondent Agency granting enhanced gratuity amount of Rs.20,00,000/- to the employees who died or retired on 10/4/2023 or thereafter, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Rules and circulars issued by the State Government. It is further argued that previously all the circulars issued by the State Government have been followed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3. Even the gratuity as per the Rules, 1976 and circular of the Government of Rs.10,00,000/- has been granted but remaining Rs.10,00,000/- has been arbitrarily denied. In support of his submission he has referred the circular, Annexure P-4 issued by the State Government addressed to all the departments of the Government directing for payment of gratuity of Rs.20,00,000/- w.e.f 1/1/2016. The petitioner retired on 31/1/2023 and, therefore, was entitled for gratuity of Rs.20,00,000/- as per the circular dated 26/10/2017, Annexure P-4. 5. In support of his submission he has referred the circular, Annexure P-4 issued by the State Government addressed to all the departments of the Government directing for payment of gratuity of Rs.20,00,000/- w.e.f 1/1/2016. The petitioner retired on 31/1/2023 and, therefore, was entitled for gratuity of Rs.20,00,000/- as per the circular dated 26/10/2017, Annexure P-4. 5. The respondent Nos.2&3 filed reply and denied the claim of the petitioners and submitted that the M.P Seed Certification Agency is an autonomous body established under Section 8 of the SEEDS ACT , 1966 and registered under M.P. Society Registrikaran Act, 1973. The Rules framed by the State Government are not ipso facto applicable to them. He relied on the Rules framed by the M.P. State Seed Certification Agency called Service RECRUITMENT RULES , 1990 (hereinafter to be referred to as the RECRUITMENT RULES , 1990). It was further stated that the Board of Director who is a competent authority under the Rules has taken a decision considering the financial condition of the Agency that the circular of the Government regarding payment of gratuity of Rs.20,00,000/- shall be applicable to the employees who retired/died on 10/4/2023 or thereafter. In regard to claim of the petitioner for benefit of 300 days leave encashment instead of 240 days submitted that the competent authority/Managing Director passed the order dated 27/4/2023 and implemented the memo dated 6/8/2018 w.e.f 10/4/2023 and the same was also made applicable for those employees retired on or after 10/4/2023 and the employees who retired prior to 10/4/2023 would be entitled for encashment of 240 days leave. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 7. The question that arises for consideration is that whether the Rules framed by the State Government and the circulars are applicable to the employees of the respondent Nos.2&3 ipso facto or whether the Board of Directors and the respondent Nos.2&3 are competent to take decision with respect to the affairs of the employees of M.P State Certification Agency including classification, scale of pay etc. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issue it is relevant to mention here that the M.P State Seed certification agency is an autonomous body established under Section 8 of the SEEDS ACT , 1966 and registered under M.P Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The Agency has framed its own Rules called the Service RECRUITMENT RULES , 1990. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issue it is relevant to mention here that the M.P State Seed certification agency is an autonomous body established under Section 8 of the SEEDS ACT , 1966 and registered under M.P Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. The Agency has framed its own Rules called the Service RECRUITMENT RULES , 1990. This Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner that the Agency is a Department of the State Government. From Section 8 itself it is clear that the Agency is created as per Section 8 of the SEEDS ACT and the same is registered under the M.P Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973. Section 8 of the SEEDS ACT is reproduced as under:- 8. Certification agency: - The State Government or the Central Government in consultation with the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazzette establish a certification agency for the State to carry out the functions entrusted to the certification agency by or under this Act. 8. Merely because the Government officials are also members of the Board of Directors, it cannot be held that the respondent Nos.2&3 is the department of the State Government. The respondent Nos.2&3 have separate legal entity and is governed by its own Rules. As per Rule 5 of the RECRUITMENT RULES , 1990 the Board of Directors is competent to take a decision with respect to number of posts or pay-scale. The relevant Rule 5 of the Rules is reproduced as under:- 5 oxhZdj.k osrueku vkfn%& (Classification, Scale of pay etc.) lsok dk oxhZdj.k mldk osrueku RkFkk lsok esa lfEefyr inks dh la[;k layXu vuqlwph&,d esa n'kkZ;s vuqlkj] gksxh ijarq laLFkk dk lapkyd e.My bl laca/k esa 'kklu }kjk le; le; ij fn;s x;s funsZ'kks ds v/khu jgrs gq;s lsok esa 'kkfey inks dh la[;k esa vko';drkuqlkj LFkk;h vFkok vLFkk;h :i ls inks dh ;a[;k ;k osruekuks esa ifjorZu ;k la'kks/ku dj ldsxkA 9. In regard to applicability of the circular dated 26/10/2017, Annexure P-4 by which the gratuity amount was enhanced from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-, a meeting was convened by Board of Directors on 10/4/2023. The Board in its 87th meeting unanimously decided that the enhancement of gratuity amount from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- vide circular dated 26/10/2017 will be applicable to the employees who retired/died on 10/4/2023 or thereafter. The Board in its 87th meeting unanimously decided that the enhancement of gratuity amount from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- vide circular dated 26/10/2017 will be applicable to the employees who retired/died on 10/4/2023 or thereafter. Further as per clause 22(B)(III) of the Memorandum of Association and Rules of Association of the Agency, the board of Director is empowered to prescribe the terms and tenure of appointments, emoluments, Rules, discipline and other conditions of services of officers and other staff. In regard to the claim of the benefit of 300 days leave encashment instead of 240 days, the competent authority passed an order on 27/4/2023 that the benefit of leave encashment of 300 days thereafter applicable to those employees who retired on or after 10/4/2023 and the employees who retired prior to 10/4/2023 would be entitled for leave encashment of 240 days. The respondents have taken a specific stand that the Board of Directors had taken the aforesaid decisions considering the financial condition of the Agency because the Agency is a self funding agency and the main source of income of the Agency is certification which is received from various seed producing companies. The Agency does not get any aid from the Government. Looking to the income and expenditure of last 5 years, the aforesaid decisions were taken. The respondents have filed the details of income from certification works and expenditure of last 5 years alongwith the additional reply. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the respondent Nos.2&3 are not the department of the State Government. It is an agency which is created under Section 8 of the SEEDS ACT and is registered as a society under M.P Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 having separate legal entity. Merely because some Government officials are members of the Board of Directors would not make the Agency as department of the Government. Admittedly, the petitioners are not employees of the State Government. They are employees of the Agency which does not receive aid from the Government. Merely because some Government officials are members of the Board of Directors would not make the Agency as department of the Government. Admittedly, the petitioners are not employees of the State Government. They are employees of the Agency which does not receive aid from the Government. The examples have been quoted by the petitioner relates to the M.P State Seed and Farm Development Corporation and the said corporation receives aid from the Government whereas respondent Nos.2&3 is an agency created under the SEEDS ACT and registered under the M.P Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 and, therefore, it cannot be held to be department of Government of M.P. Therefore, the Rules or the circulars issued by the State Government for the employees of its department would not applicable to the respondents ipso facto. The view of this Court is fortified by the decision taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Amarnath Goyal and Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 754 and in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. vs. N. Subbarayudu and Ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 702 wherein it has been held that it is within the competence of the employer to fix a cut-off date for grant of benefits. 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality in the decision taken by the respondent Nos.2&3 fixing a cut-off date and giving benefit of enhanced gratuity amount and leave encashment to the employees who died/retired on 10/4/2023 or thereafter. Therefore the petitioners are not entitled for enhanced and balance amount of gratuity and leave encashment as they retired before 10/4/2023. 11. Accordingly, all the petitions sans merit and are hereby dismissed.