Madhya Pradesh High Court
Israt Mohammed vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2016
(1)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1482 of 2014
ISRAT MOHAMMED
Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : None.
For Respondents : Mr. Pushpendar Yadav, G.A.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(24.11.2016.) Per : Sujoy Paul J.
In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the illegality, validity & propriety of order dated 20.06.2012 (Annexure-P-6), whereby the respondents have retired him by treating him to be a daily rated employee, whereas he stood classified as permanent employee pursuant to Labour Court's order dated 31.08.1999 (Annexure-P-1).
2. Mr. Yadav, learned G.A., fairly submits that although this order of Labour Court was not interfered with by Industrial Court and by this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to be treated as permanent employee.
3. The bone of contention of the petitioner is that once he has been classified as permanent employee, he is entitled to get all benefits attached to a permanent post (2) including retiral dues.
4. The stand of Mr. Yadav, learned G.A. is based on para 6 & 7 of the return, wherein it is averred that as per M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 the qualifying service means the service rendered between the date of joining of pensionable service till the retirement. As per Rule 3(p) of the said rules, the services rendered as a classified permanent employee cannot be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension.
5. In the opinion of this Court the contention advanced by the respondents has no merit. This is settled in law that if an employee is classified as permanent employee under the provisions of standard standing orders by Labour Court, for all practice purposes he should be treated to be a permanent employee. The status acquired under the standard standing order has also a status acquired in accordance with law. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.110/2011, in this regard has opined as under:-
"whether an employee comes by way of normal recruitment process or through the process of classification, the fact remains that both i.e. the normally recruited employee and a classified employee work on the same post and perform the same duties. It cannot be held that the classification has any less effect or force as compared to the normal process of appointment, because the classification is also based upon the law in the form of Standing Orders and as such both employees who have been brought into through either of the two processes permitted by law, as permanent employees against a particular post, should be entitled to the same (3) benefits. Taking a contrary view would mean that the employees inducted through classification process would be saddled with an undesirable disability throughout their service, as compared to other employees which may tantamount to violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Our view finds support from another Division Bench decision of this Court report in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ram Prakash (1989 JLJ 36).
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed."
6. For this reason, I am inclined to hold that the action of the respondent in not treating the petitioner as a permanent employee despite the order of Labour Court is irrational, capricious and arbitrary in nature. Thus, the impugned order dated 30.06.2012, whereby the respondents have treated the petitioner as a daily rated employee cannot be countenanced. Resultantly, this order dated 20.06.2012, is set aside.
7. As a consequence of aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the petitioner acquired the status of permanent employee before two years from the date of filing application under Section 31 of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court. From that date, if petitioner has rendered qualifying service, the respondents are bound to pay him pension and other retrial dues.
8. Resultatnly, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as permanent employee as per the order of (4) the Labour Court and if he is found eligible for grant of pension, pay him pension and other dues within 90 days from the date of production of copy of this order.
9. Since, the order of Labour Court (Annexure-P-1) has attained a finality, it was not open for the respondents to take a different view and still say that the petitioner was daily rated employee. The said finding in the impugned order runs contrary to the Court's order. In my considered opinion, this is a avoidable piece of litigation. After having lost the battle in various Court, the respondent/State should have implemented the order of Labour Court and should have extended all benefits to the petitioner automatically. It is unfortunate that at the petitioner, in December of his carrier was forced to file this litigation which is totally unnecessary and reasons for the same are solely attributable to the respondents. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and if he is eligible, grant him all the benefits including retiral dues within 90 days with 12% interest on delayed payment. In addition, the petitioner will get Rs.5,000/- as cost of this litigation. The State may recover this cost from erring officers.
10. Petition is allowed.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE s@if