Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambahadur Tiwari vs Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vidyut ... on 30 October, 2025
1 WP-14840-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4742 of 2024
KAMLAKANT DWIVEDI
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH PURVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Amalpushp Shroti - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 - 3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 4768 of 2024
LAKHAN PRASAD PANDEY
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH PURV KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN COMPANY
LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Amalpushp Shroti - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 - 3.
WRIT PETITION No. 14840 of 2025
RAMBAHADUR TIWARI
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH POORV KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN
COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 11/1/2025
3:57:53 PM
2 WP-14840-2025
Shri Amalpushp Shroti - Advocate for the Respondents No.1 - 3.
ORDER
The present Petitioners are taken over employees of Erstwhile Rural Electrification Cooperative Society, Lavkushnagar which has been taken over by Respondent/Company which is one of the sixth successor companies of Erstwhile M.P. State Electricity Board. The said Society has been taken over by the M.P.S.E.B. as per the Order dated 01.07.2010 passed by the M.P. Electricity Regulatory Commission in Writ Petition No.16/2010 and though the Petitioners have continued to serve M.P.S.E.B. and are not serving the Respondent/Company after unbundling M.P.S.E.B. in April, 2012 but still formal Orders of the absorption of the Respondent Company had not been passed. The Petitioners are on the verge of retirement and have put in more than 30 years of service in Society/M.P.S.E.B. and the Respondent/Company taken together.
2. In Writ Petition No.14840/2025, the refusal Order dated 03.04.2025 is under challenge. Writ Petition No.4742/2024 and Writ Petition No.4768/2024 have been filed on the ground of inaction of the respondent in not absorbing their services despite the Scrutiny Committee finding these Petitioners fit for being absorbed.
3. Today, learned counsel for the Respondent/Company submits that in these two cases also during pendency of the present petition, the Company has rejected their cases for absorption on the ground that they did not have the requisite educational qualification on the date of initial appointment in the Erstwhile M.P. Society. However, despite having been granted repeated Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 3 WP-14840-2025 opportunities in the recent past to file reply, in these two cases, neither any reply has been filed nor such Orders said to be passed on 09.09.2025 have been placed on record and today the learned counsel for the Respondent/Company heavily tried to canvas before this Court that this Court should not hear to decide these two cases because in these two cases, the Orders passed by the Company during pendency of the present Petition shall not be formally put to challenge and such Orders have not been challenged by the Petitioners. Therefore, no relief can be granted in these two Petitions Writ Petition No.4742/2024 and Writ Petition No.4768/2024.
4. The direction Orders passed during pendency of these petitions would always remain subject matters of the Orders to be passed in the present Petition and this Court would not refrain from taking of these Petitions also only on the ground that the Respondents have passed some rejection Orders during pendency of the present Petition that too, after receiving notices of the pendency of present Petition and the matter being covered by identical matters being decided in cases of similarly placed employees of Rural Electrification Cooperative Society, Sidhi decided on 22.08.2025.
5. The act of the Respondent/Company in passing fresh Orders in the cases of Petitioners after the identical petitions were decided and allowed on 22.08.2025 and then trying to project before this Court to postpone the hearing of the present Petitions and project before this Court that these Petitions should not be taken up for hearing because some Orders of rejection passed on 09.09.2025 have not been put to challenge is something Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 4 WP-14840-2025 which is not expected of a Public Sector Undertaking of the State. For such act of the Respondent/Company, exemplary costs being deserved to be imposed on the the Respondent/Company which would be quantified in the later part of the Order.
6. The legal issue involved in the present case has already been decided in a bunch of matters led by Writ Petition No.21007/2023 decided on 22.08.2025 in the following manner:-
"These petitions have been filed on identical facts and for identical reliefs and therefore, they are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the reference to documents is taken from WP No.21007/2023.
2. By of this petition, the petitioners have called into question the show cause notices Annexure P/1-A to P/1-D so also the order of MPSEB dated 13/08/2010 (Annexure P/4) and the order/communication dated 12/05/2023 (Annexure P/9) issued by the Head Office of the Company to the Chief Engineer.
3. The matter relates to absorption of employees of erstwhile Rural Electrification Cooperative Society, Sidhi (for short hereinafter referred to as "REC"). The counsels for the petitioners has submitted that there were a number of Rural Electrification Cooperative Societies in Madhya Pradesh and initially vide Annexure P/2 a decision was taken by MP Electricity Regulatory Commission ("MPERC" for short) on 20/02/2002 to cancel distribution licenses granted to 10 RECs in the State in Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 5 WP-14840-2025 which REC Sidhi was not there. Thereafter, by subsequent decision, the distribution license granted to REC, Sidhi was also revoked/cancelled vide Annexure P/3 dated 19/07/2010 and the same terms and conditions which are existing while revocation of licenses of earlier 10 RECs were borrowed and adopted for revocation of licenses of REC Sidhi also in the matter of absorption of employees. It is contended by learned senior counsel that there was no provision for carrying out any scrutiny of regular employees and as Para per 20(ii) of order Annexure P/2, screening was to be done only for daily rated employees and was not required to be made for regular employees in terms of paragraph 20(i) thereof. The same terms and conditions were borrowed and adopted for REC, Sidhi also vide Paragraph 7(iv) of order Annexure P/3 and therefore, no scrutiny was required to be carried out for REC, Sidhi in the matter of regular employees and the petitioners being regular employees of REC, Sidhi, therefore, the scrutiny in their cases could not have been made.
4. It is contended that the erstwhile MPSEB issued consequential order in pursuance to order Annexure P/3 issued by the MPERC on 19/07/2010 and by this consequential order Annexure P/4 dated 13/08/2010, the Board in Para(i) of the said order decided to scrutinize and screen the cases of regular employees also. In pursuance to that, a screening took place and the Board took a decision not to absorb the services of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 6 WP-14840-2025 petitioners, which led to a batch of petitions before this Court led by WP No.20394/2012, which was allowed by the Single Bench on 08/05/2020 quashing the decision of the respondents not to absorb the services of the petitioners and this Court directed respondents to grant consequential benefits to the petitioners by treating them as already absorbed. It is contended that the respondents filed writ appeals and in the writ appeals, they contended that they are withdrawing the show cause notices etc. issued to the petitioners that were challenged in original writ petitions and therefore, in view of that statement, the writ appeals were disposed of holding that the respondents can issue fresh notices in accordance with law. Now the fresh notices have been issued vide Annexure P/1-A to P/1-D and not only that, but the respondents have taken a decision vide Annexure P/9 dated 12/05/2023 deciding therein that 47 employees are not entitled for absorption as 14 were under-age at the time of initial appointment, 22 were over-age at the time of appointment and 11 did not have the requisite educational qualification at the time of initial appointment in the society. It is contended that the process of scrutiny and screening could not have been carried out by the MPSEB or by the respondent/company being successor of MPSEB and the entire process of screening is bad in law. The liberty by the Division Bench was only to issue notice "in accordance with law", but the impugned notices amount to an Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM
7 WP-14840-2025 action that is unknown to law and violates law. It is contended that the said screening of over-age and under-age could not be taken at the time of fag end of services of petitioners when most of them are retired after serving the society and the MPSEB and its successor company and some of them have even expired and now represented by their legal representatives. Therefore, once the employee has completed entire service tenure and has come at the fag end of retirement and he did not suppresses his age or qualification at the time of retirement and employer having given appointment and/or regularized him despite being under-age or over-age, no adverse consequence would fall on the employee at the time of retirement in the evening of his career and in the evening of his life, therefore, the impugned notices and orders be set aside.
5. Per contra, Shri A.P. Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents Company has vehemently argued that the writ petition against the show cause notices Annexure P/1-A to P/1-D is utterly premature and also that it is settled that writ petition would not lie against the show cause notice. The petitioners should reply to the notices and have order on merits. Only then they can have a valid locus to challenge the action of the respondents. Heavy reliance is placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM8 WP-14840-2025
6. Shri Shroti further argued that so far as the order dated 13/08/2020 issued by the Board vide Annexure P/4 is concerned. The petition against the said order suffers from delay and laches because the said order was passed 13 years prior to filing of the writ petition and therefore, so far as the decision taken by the erstwhile MPSEB vide Annexure P/4 is concerned, no interference is warranted on account of delay and latches being caused by sheer efflux of time.
7. It is further argued that Annexure P/9 is not a decision and it is only an inter-departmental communication which does not give a valid locus to the petitioner to challenge the same and the petition is utterly premature because final action in pursuance to Annexure P/9 is yet to take place.
8. On merits also it is vehemently argued that some of the petitioners have been found to be under age, some are found to be over age and some are found to be under qualified on the date of appointment, therefore, the respondents cannot be expected to perpetuate illegality which was committed by the REC at the relevant point of time and while absorbing the services of the petitioners, the respondents can always cure the illegalities carried out by the erstwhile RECs and cannot be forced to perpetuate the illegality carried out by the erstwhile RECs.
9. Heard.
10. In the State of Madhya Pradesh earlier MP Electricity Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 9 WP-14840-2025 Board was functioning which was renamed as MP State Electricity Board upon bifurcation of the State in the year 2000. The State Government enacted Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 (for short referred as "MPVSA") to carry out various reforms in the electricity distribution generation and transmission system in this State. Thereafter Central Government enacted Electricity Act 2003 which was notified in June 2003. The MPVSA has been saved even after enactment of the Electricity Act 2003, in view of Section 185 (3) thereof, that saves certain enactments as mentioned in the Schedule and as per entry-8 to the Schedule, MPVSA has been saved. Therefore, MPVSA continued to apply even while passing the order Annexure P-3 in the year 2010.
11. In the State of Madhya Pradesh in various rural and Tribal underdeveloped areas, in place of the M.P. Electricity Board carrying out the work of supply and distribution of electricity directly, various RECs were set up by the State Government which were State-owned Cooperative Societies. The said societies ran into heavy losses and by the year 2002 it was found that most of the societies are no longer viable and need to be wound up because the societies are unable to sustain themselves and if the societies are allowed to continue then the power supply in the areas catered by the said societies would adversely get affected.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM10 WP-14840-2025
12. In terms of provisions of MPVSA, Electricity Regulatory Commission was set up in Madhya Pradesh even prior to enactment of Electricity Act 2003, though the regulatory commission is also provided in the consequential Electricity Act 2003. However in the State of Madhya Pradesh, MPERC owes its initial existence to MPVSA 2000. The said Act was enacted for the purpose of restructuring, rationalization and regulating the electricity industries in Madhya Pradesh, so also for providing quality of services and tariff to save the interest of the consumers and the power utilities.
13. As per Section 18 of the aforesaid Adhiniyam, it was provided that the Commission may inquire into the conduct or functioning of any licensee and can revoke the license. As per Section 19 the consequential provisions upon revocation of license was laid down and as per Section 19 the Commission had a power to permit sale or transfer of the undertaking whose license was revoked and to determine the terms and conditions of transfer of the undertakings. Sections 18 and 19 are as under:-
"18. Revocation of Licences : (1)The Commission may inquire into the conduct or functioning of any licensee in carrying out the obligations under this Act or the regulations framed thereunder or the terms and conditions of the licence---
(a)upon receiving a complaint from any consumer or consumer association or any trade association; or
(b)upon a reference made to it by the State Government Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 11 WP-14840-2025 or by the Central Commission or the Central Government or the Electricity Authority or any other Authority; or
(c)upon receiving a complaint from any company or person involved in the generation, transmission, sub-
transmission, distribution or supply of electricity; or
(d)upon its own knowledge or information derived from any source.
(2)After making the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Commission may, if in its opinion the public interest so requires, revoke a licence in any of the following cases namely:--
(a)where the licensee, has committed a wilful or unreasonable default in doing anything required by or under this Act or regulations made thereunder or the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (No.9 of 1910) or the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 (No. 54 of 1948) or rules or regulations made thereunder to the extent applicable in the State read with the provisions of this Act;
(b)where the licensee commits a breach of any of the terms and conditions of the licence, the breach of which is expressly declared by such licence to render it liable to revocation;
(c)where the licensee fails within the period specified in the liecence or any longer period that the Commission may allow by order-
(i)to show, to the satisfaction of the Commission, that it is in a position to fully and efficiently discharge the duties and obligations imposed by the licence; and
(ii)to make the deposit or furnish the security required by the licence; and
(d)where the financial position of the licensee is such Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 12 WP-14840-2025 that the licensee is unable to fully and efficiently discharge the duties and obligations imposed on him by the licence.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) where the public interest so requires, the Commission may, on the application or with the consent of the licensee, and if the licensee is not a local authority, after consulting the local authority concerned, revoke licence as to the whole or any part of the area of transmission or supply upon such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. (4) No licence shall be revoked under sub-section (2) unless the Commission has given to the licensee not less than 30days notice in writing, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence and has considered any cause shown by the licensee within the period of that notice, against the proposed revocation and has given reasons for such revocation.
(5)The Commission may, instead of revoking the licence, permit it to remain in force subject to such further terms and conditions as it thinks fit to impose and the terms or conditions so imposed shall be binding upon , and be observed by, the licensee, and be of like force and effect as if they were contained in the licence.
19. Provisions where Licence is Revoked :
(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6 and 7 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (No.9 of 1910), where the Commission revokes a licence, under sub-section (2) of Section 18 the following provisions shall apply:--
(a)the Commission shall serve a notice of revocation upon the licensee and shall fix a date on which the Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 13 WP-14840-2025 revocation shall take effect on and with effect from that date, or on and with effect from the date, if earlier on which the undertaking of the licensee is sold to a purchaser in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall absolutely cease and stand determined except for any obligation or liabilities that had accrued to that date;
(b)the Commission shall invite application for acquiring the undertaking of the licensee whose licence has been revoked and determine the price payable and other terms and conditions of the sale of the undertaking;
(c)the Commission may by notice in writing require the licensee to sell at the price on terms and conditions determined under clause (b) and thereupon the licensee shall sell the undertaking to the person (hereinafter in this section referred to as "purchaser") and whose application has been accepted by the Commission; and
(d)the Commission may make such interim arrangement in regard to the undertaking of the licensee for maintaining the electricity transmission and supply as may be considered appropriate including the appointment of administrators and special directors for the undertaking of the licensee.
(2)Where an undertaking is sold under sub-section(1), the purchaser shall deposit the purchase price of the undertaking determined in accordance with the application submitted by the purchaser as per the directions of the Commission and the Commission shall have the powers to direct that the outstanding amount of any fine , charge or compensation levied on the licensee in terms of Section 31 of the Act or any other amount due or Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 14 WP-14840-2025 outstanding from the licensee to the commission or to any other person as per the orders passed by the commission be first adjusted out of the amount deposited before releasing the amount to the licensee concerned.
(3)Where the Commission issues any notice under sub- section (1) requiring the licensee to sell the undertaking, it may by such notice require the licensee to deliver the undertaking and thereupon the licensee shall deliver on a date specified in the notice , to the designated purchaser pending the payment of the purchase price of the undertaking: Providing that in any such case, the purchaser shall pay to the licensee interest at such rate not exceeding the Reserve Bank lending rate ruling at the time of delivery of the undertaking as the Commission may decide, on the purchase price of the undertaking for the period from the date of delivery of the undertaking to the date of payment of the purchase price.
(4)The licensee shall duly implement the orders of the Commission under this section, notwithstanding that the licensee may be aggrieved by the order and intends to challenge the orders of the Commission."
14. As per section 19 (b) it is clear that the Commission was having the power to determine the price payable all other terms and conditions of sale of undertaking and to decide all ancillary and consequential issues arising in the course of cancellation of Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 15 WP-14840-2025 license and transfer of business or work to other 10 WP-21007- 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:40134 utility because power supply cannot be stopped upon cancellation of licensee in a particular area and necessarily the work is to be given over to some other utility and this was duly provided for vide Sections 18 and 19 of MPVSA.
15. The MPERC duly passed the order Annexure P-2 dated 20.02.2002 exercising the powers under Section 18 and cancelled the distribution licenses of ten Societies in the State. In para 20 the terms and conditions are also laid down which was by exercising the statutory powers of Commission under Section 19. Para 20 of order Annexure P/2 was as under:-
"20. The aforesaid revocation of licence shall be subject to following terms and conditions:-
(i) The regular employees of the above societies shall be taken over by the Board on the same terms and conditions as existing in the Society except that .no deputation allowance shall be paid.
(ii) As regards daily wages employees of the Societies, the Board may do their screening and absorb those daily wage employees, who are found eligible. Those employees who are not found eligible for absorption by the Board will remain in the respective Societies and the concerned Societies shall take |appropriate action for their removal or otherwise within a period of 2 years from the date of cancellation of licence. During this period (2 years) the Board will make available sufficient Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 16 WP-14840-2025 funds for payment of wages of such daily wage employees.
(iii)As regards Amarpatan Society, having regards to Hon'ble High Court's order dated 16.8.96 in respect of writ petition No. 3432/96 by Shri Nagendra L. Nigam and other employees their service conditions shall not be dispensed until the disposal of the petition.
iv) MPSEB while taking over the Societies has to ensure that all up to date orders passed by the Hon'ble M.P. High Court are taken into consideration and strictly complied.
v) MPSEB and*the concerned Societies shall issue a joint notice in the news papers that from a prescribed date the consumers of the respective Societies shall be the consumers of the Board. Such notice shall be published at least 15 days in abundance of the proposed date of take over.
vi) The Registrar Cooperative Societies shall take further appropriate action for the future of the Societies, whose supply/distribution licence stand cancelled."
(Emphasis supplied)
16. It is clear from perusal of Para 20 (i) that the regular employees will be taken over by the MPSEB on the same terms and conditions existing in the Society and inpara (ii) it was provided that scrutiny and screening shall be made of daily rated employees. There was no provision for screening and scrutiny of regular employees and no such competence authority or power was vested in the Board and it was directed to take over the regular employees of the Society in the Board on the same terms and Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 17 WP-14840-2025 conditions.
17. The question of revocation of licence of REC Sidhi was ordered by the MPERC vide Annexure P/3 dated 19.07.2010. The MPERC in para-7 of the said order Annexure P/3 directed that the question of absorption of employees was to be done in the same manner as has already been done in the case of eight societies already taken over as per terms and conditions adopted in the past. Para 7 (iv) was as under:-
"(iv) As regards employees of these societies, it was decided to take over their services in MPSEB as was done earlier in case of the 8 societies already taken over as per the terms and conditions adopted in the past"
18. The natural consequence of the same was that the regular employees were to be taken over without scrutiny and daily rated employees were to be taken over after scrutiny and screening. However the erstwhile MPSEB in its own wisdom issued the order Annexure P/4 and in para (i) the following was provided:-
"i). The - regular employees of these Societies are hereby provisionally absorbed in the Board on the same terms and conditions as prevailing in respective Societies at the time of issue of aforesaid orders issued by MPERC, subject to condition that final absorption will be done after screening of the service records of the concerned employees."
(Emphasis supplied) Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 18 WP-14840-2025
19. The MPSEB decided to carry out scrutiny of regular employees also which was never authorized to be done by the MPERC and therefore para (i) was an act of overreaching the direction of the MPERC which the MPERC had done in exercise of statutory powers of MPERC as per section 17 of MPVSA.
20. The MPSEB itself wound up in April 2012 and the work of Distribution of Electricity was taken over by the respondent company in East part of State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, the Board of Directors of respondent company carried out some scrutiny in the year 2012 and decided not to absorb the petitioners which was challenged by petitioners in a batch of writ petitions in WP 20394 of 2012 and it was decided by the single Bench that the petitioners are entitled to be absorbed because no reason for non absorption have been disclosed. This order Annexure P/5 dated 08.05.2020 was challenged in writ appeal by the respondents in W.A. No. 665 of 2020 and connected matters and it was stated by the respondents in writ appeal wherein they were appellants that they are withdrawing all the impugned notifications and show- case notices and consequential orders and therefore the matter be disposed of in the said terms. Resultantly the Division Bench disposed of the writ appeals holding that since the notices which are impugned in the original writ petitions are being withdrawn, therefore the matters are disposed of and the findings recorded by the single Bench will not be read by either of the parties for any Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 19 WP-14840-2025 purpose and the appellants therein i.e. present respondents would be at liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law.
21. Now said fresh notices Annexures P/1-A to P/2-D are under challenge and after issuance of the said notice even the order Annexure P/9 has been issued by the company whereby the Head Office of the Company has directed the Field Office i.e. Regional Chief Engineer, Rewa informing him that 14 employees have been found to be underage, 22 have been found to be overage and 11 have been found to be under qualified on the date of initial appointment in the society and therefore the Head Office returned the cases of these 47 employees directing the Chief Engineer as under:-
Hindi--------------will type after approval of your Lordship---
-----------------
22. It is clear that the Head Office of the company has directed the regional Chief Engineer that 47 employees are not entitled to be absorbed and their services have to be sent back to the REC Sidhi and speaking order be passed and caveat be filed in the High Court. More so, the same scrutiny is being relied upon on basis of which the earlier notices were issued, that were quashed by the Single Bench in earlier round of litigation, and the same were withdrawn during pendency of writ appeal.
23. The aforesaid directions contained in the Annexure P/9 are nothing but an order and it is not simply an inter-departmental Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 20 WP-14840-2025 communication. It is because the Head Office of the company is writing to Regional Chief Engineer that 47 employees are not entitled to be absorbed and their services have to be sent back to REC Sidhi and the Chief Engineer should pass consequential order and file caveat in the High Court. Therefore, nothing requires to be decided by the Chief Engineer and no application of mind is required to be made by the Chief Engineer after this mandatory direction issued to the Chief Engineer by the Head Office of the Company. The Chief Engineer will now do only pass orders by performing a ministerial act, and nothing else. Therefore, the communication Annexure P/9 gives a valid cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the same.
24. So far as the question of delay and latches is concerned, the petitioners have been contesting the matter since the year 2012 when in terms of the letter Annexure P/4, the Board of Directors of the respondent company had scrutinized their cases and their earlier writ petitions remained pending up to year 2020 then the respondents got the entire proceedings short-circuited by withdrawing the impugned show-cause notices. Thereafter they have issued the fresh show cause notices based upon the same scrutiny carried out in the year 2012 in terms of order Annexure P/4 dated 13.08.2010.
25. The consequences of the said order have been falling on the petitioner since 2012 onwards and the petitioners are in Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 21 WP-14840-2025 litigation since the year 2012. Even if the petitioners had not been in litigation then also the consequential orders and notices being issued in the year 2022 and 2023 in pursuance to the Annexure P/4, therefore, the petitioners could always have challenged the order Annexure P/4 in the year 2023 even if they had not been litigating the matter from any previous date. Therefore the objection as to delay in laches is overruled.
26. So far as the merits of the decision Annexure P/9 is concerned it contains three reasons :-
(i) 14 petitioners being under-age on the date of initial appointment in the society.
(ii) 22 petitioners being over-age on date of initial appointment in the society.
(iii) 11 petitioners being under-qualified on the date of initial appointment.
27. So far as the question of under-age and over-age is concerned, the age limit was set up by the society itself. The society being the employer was always having competence and authority to relax the age limits and once the petitioners had not suppressed their real ages at the time of appointment and the society with open eyes had granted appointment to the petitioners almost 30 to 35 years ago, now at this distance of time the said issue cannot be opened up, more so when the MPERC by orders Annexure P/3 read with Annexure P/2 never give such a liberty to the respondents. The respondents could have some locus to object to that only if the petitioner had suppressed their real ages and Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 22 WP-14840-2025 committed fraud. Once the employer i.e. the REC granted appointment despite being overage or underage then will be a case of deemed relaxation granted by the employer which was always within the power and competence of the employer to do so.
28. So far as the question of being under-age is concerned it was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the respondents that being underage cannot be relaxed at all and it is a case of illegal employment. The said assertion is also misconceived. Though employer should not employ any person who is under-age, but as per Child and Adolescent Labour Prohibition and Regulation Act 1986 there is no general prohibition of employment of adolescents in occupations and processes and prohibition is only in certain hazardous occupations and processes. Adolescents are defined as per Section 2(i) meaning a person between 14th to 18th year of age. Nothing is in the reply that how the employment of those petitioners who were underage at the time of their initial appointment violated the aforesaid Act.
29. As per schedule to the said Act of 1986, hazardous occupations are defined as mines, inflammable substances, explosives and hazardous processes as per Clause (cb) of Factories Act 1948. Nothing has been placed on record that any of these under-age petitioners were employed in hazardous processes. Even if the underage petitioners were employed in hazardous processes then it would be illegality committed by the employer Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 23 WP-14840-2025 and the employee cannot be said at the fag end of his career or even his life that his entire employment cannot now be recognized. Once he has put in 30 to 35 years of service then, if any criminal offence as per Section 14 of Act of 1986 was committed by the employer in employing the adolescent, the employee cannot be shown the door out to go out of employment in such a manner at the fag end of service. Therefore the petitioners being under-age or over-age is totally inconsequential on merits also.
30. Not only this, but in the manner the respondents have acted in the matter is also utterly surprising. The respondents have directed that the petitioners be sent back to REC Sidhi, knowing fully well the respondents have taken over the entire assets, business, offices, etc. of REC Sidhi and now there is no REC Sidhi in existence and the office of REC Sidhi have been taken over by the respondents and the petitioners have been asked to go back to an employer which no longer exists. Therefore there is utter non application and rather misapplication of mind by the respondents in the matter.
31. So far as the question of the petitioners being under qualified is concerned, now when the petitioners have successfully put in 30 to 35 years of service and discharging the duties successfully. There is no allegation against them that they are unable to discharge the duties successfully. After working for such a long time and some of them having even retired without any Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 24 WP-14840-2025 allegation that they were negligent towards their duties, now at the fag end of service, it cannot be said by the employer that the employer would not recognize their long services and they are being under qualified at the time of initial appointment would be disadvantage, more so when the petitioners did not suppress their actual qualifications, and the employer duly appointed them despite knowing fully well their actual qualification.
32. It is not a case of the employee seeking regularization of the services. The respondents have mis-applied the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi 2006 (4) SCC 1, so also the consequential executive instructions issued by the State Government to carry out process of regularisations vide circular dated 16.5.2007. No doubt the Constitution Bench held that employees who do not have the requisite qualification shall be illegal appointees, and further held in para-54 that all the previous judgments running counter shall cease to have precedential effect. However, if any action had been taken and concluded in terms of the previous judgments, that was not at all disturbed by the Constitution Bench. Moreso, the petitioners already stood regularized prior to the date of the said judgment, in view of the previous law prevailing.
33. The previous view of the Hon'ble Apex Court was in Bhagwati Prasad and others Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation reported in1990 (1) SCC 361, wherein the 3-judge Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 25 WP-14840-2025 Bench had held as under:-
6. The main controversy centres round the question whether some petitioners are possessed of the requisite qualifications to hold the posts so as to entitle them to be confirmed in the respective posts held by them. The indisputable facts are that the petitioners were appointed between the period 1983 and 1986 ever since, they have been working and have gained sufficient experience in the actual discharge of duties attached to the posts held by them. Practical experience would always aid the person to effectively discharge the duties and is a sure guide to assess the suitability. The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of the initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications. In our view, three years' experience, ignoring artificial break in service for short period/periods created by the respondent, in the circumstances, would be sufficient for confirmation. If there is a gap of more than three months between the period of termination and re-appointment that period may be excluded in the computation of the three years period. Since the petitioners before us satisfy the requirement of three years' service as calculated above, we direct that 40 of the seniormost workmen should be regularised with immediate effect and the remaining 118 petitioners should be regularised in a phased manner, before April 1, 1991 and promoted to the next higher post according to the standing orders. All the petitioners are entitled to equal pay at par with the persons appointed on regular basis to the similar post or discharge similar duties, and are entitled to the scale of pay and all allowances revised from time to time for the said posts. We further direct that 16 of the petitioners who are ousted from the service pending the writ petition should be reinstated immediately. Suitable Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM
26 WP-14840-2025 promotional avenues should be created and the respondent should consider the eligible candidates for being promoted to such posts. The respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 in the Registry of this Court within four weeks to meet the remuneration of the Industrial Tribunal. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed, but without costs.
(Emphasis supplied) 34 . The REC had already acted in terms of the previous legal position as was existing by regularizing the under-qualified petitioners much prior to the judgment in case of Uma Devi (supra). The respondents could not have weaponised the said judgment against the petitioners by re-opening the issue that had settled long ago, and had been put to rest by the REC itself by regularising their services. 35. Recently, in the case of All India ShriShivaji Memorial Society v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 (6) SCC 605, the Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the cases of those Assistant Professors who were appointed after 15.3.2000 without Ph.D. degree and failed to attain it even 7 years after their appointment despite it becoming an essential qualification from 15.3.2000. It has been held that such non-Ph.D. holders will not be entitled to further benefits like pay and designation upgradations. It was held as under :-
36. Under the circumstances, and in terms of what we have held above, the respondents who were appointed after 15-3-2000, who were nonPhD and had also failed to acquire the same within seven years of appointment as was required, cannot be given the benefit of the 2010 Notification inasmuch as they cannot be given a higher pay scale or redesignated as an Associate Professor.
36. Consequently the impugned communication Annexure Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 27 WP-14840-2025 P/9, Para (i) of Annexure P/4 and the notices Annexure P/1-A to P/1-D are set aside with the following consequential directions:-
a. The petitioners are held entitled to be absorbed in MPSEB at par with all other employees of REC Sidhi and they would be entitled to all consequential benefits as given to other employees of REC Sidhi at par with them upon their absorption in MPSEB/respondent company.
b. However, those 11 employees who had though been regularized by erstwhile REC, but had not acquired the minimum educational qualifications even till date of absorption, will not be entitled for promotions on higher posts and ACP/financial upgradation in the respondent Company, but any prior promotion and ACP already granted by erstwhile REC shall stand saved.
37. Let the necessary compliance be made within 90 days. Petitions are allowed."
7. The present Petitioners are also similarly situated. There is no difference on merits between the cases of the Petitioners and the cases decided in Writ Petition No.21007/2023.
8. So far as the Petitioners not having requisite minimum qualification on the date of appointment is concerned, though this Court has already held in Writ Petition No.21007/2023 that scrutiny could not have been carried out in cases of regular and permanent employees of taken over Societies but in para 31 of the said Order it has further been dealt with that after putting in the entire service tenure of more than 30-35 years when there was no Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 28 WP-14840-2025 suppression of qualification, it cannot be said at the time of superannuation that the employees did not have the requisite qualification because the Employer having fixed the requisite qualification could always have relaxed the requisite qualification. Even otherwise, in Writ Petition No.4742/2024, the Scrutiny Committee had recommended absorption on the ground that the Petitioner therein not having requisite qualification has already been put to rest by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Chhatarpur vide Order dated 13.11.1997 and therefore, he is fit for absorption.
9. Similarly in Writ Petition No.4768/2024 and Writ Petition No.14840/2025, it has been held by the Scrutiny Committee that though the Petitioners therein did not have the requisite qualification of Typing Examination but since there is a general exemption from passing Typing Examination for the employees crossing age of 40 years, therefore, they can be absorbed as they are above 40 years of age.
10. In view of the aforesaid, even on facts and merits, the objection of the respondents regarding minimum qualification of the Petitioners is not sustainable.
11. Consequently, the Petitions are allowed in similar terms as Writ Petition No.21007/2023 and the said Order would apply to the Petitioners mutatis mutandis with full force.
12. The rejection Orders of the Petitioners whereby the respondents have refused to absorb them in service are set aside. The Petitioners are held entitled to be absorbed in M.P.S.E.B. at par with all other employees of Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 29 WP-14840-2025 REC, Lavkushnagar and would be entitled to all consequential benefits as given to other employees of REC, Lavkushnagar at par with those employees upon their absorption in M.P.S.E.B./Respondent/Company.
13. Let necessary consequential Orders be passed within 90 days of this Order.
14. The Respondent M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company is also saddled with cost of Rs.50,000/- each to be paid to the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.4742/2024 and Writ Petition No.4768/2024 which shall also be paid within 90 days of this Order.
15. In the above terms, the Petitions are disposed off.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE veni Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM