Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhanraj Choudhary vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT
AT JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH: JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
W.P.No. 6161 of 2008
Dhanraj Choudhary
VERSUS
State of M.P & Others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Prashant Badariya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Girish Kekre, learned G.A for the respondent/State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
(22.05.2017) In the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed a direction to the respondents to pay difference of consolidated pension, dearness relief and interim relief on pension from 03.07.1993 as sanctioned by order dated 29.04.1995 (29.09.1995) and order dated 14.07.1998 Annexure-P/7 and P/11 along with interest.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner retired on 03.04.1992 from the post of Deputy Director, Urban Administration, Bhopal Division, Bhopal. The petitioner has been granted revised and consolidated pension as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 in pursuant to the Government instructions contained in Annexure-P/11. The contention of the petitioner is that as per the order dated 29.04.1995 (29.09.1995) Annexure-P/7, he is entitled for the pension, dearness relief and interim relief on pension with effect from 03.07.1993, whereas the same has been granted to him with effect from 01.01.1996, therefore he is entitled for difference of consolidated pension, dearness relief and interim relief on pension.
3. It is also submitted by him that he is entitled for the said relief in view of the orders passed by this Court in similar cases which has been decided by orders Annexure-P/16, P/17 and P/18 whereby, the similarly placed persons Chief Municipal Officers have been granted the said relief. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, he has submitted that he is entitled to be treated at par with the other similarly situated employees.
4. Per contra, the State has denied the claim of the petitioner. An objection has also been raised that the petition suffers from delay and latches. It is submitted that the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.1992 and the present petition is filed in year 2008 whereas, he was granted the benefit with effect from 01.01.1996 as per the order dated 14.07.1998. After accepting the said benefits as granted to him, the petitioner has laid his claim for claiming the differences on the basis of the orders of the respondents dated 29.09.1995 and 14.07.1998 issued much after the date of retirement of the petitioner. He is estopped from challenging the aforesaid payment from 01.01.1996 as he had accepted the same without any protest.
5. It is also submitted by learned G.A for the respondent/State that the judgments on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable in the present case as in those cases the Government order dated 11.04.2000 was not taken into consideration. It is also submitted that the State Government is not providing any aid to the Municipal fund and the special pension fund has to be operated only out of contribution received from the Municipality and deduction made from octroi compensation payable to Municipalities and extra expenditure incurred from the municipal fund would adversely affect payment of the petitioner to other retired employees. It is further submitted that similar issue which has been raised in the present case was raised in the case of Bhavani Shankar and others Vs. State of M.P and Others W.P.No.714/2001 which was decided on 14.02.2006 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Indore. In the said case, the issue was considered that whether retired municipal employees are entitled to receive pension as per the revised pay scale by the Government on the basis of the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996.
6. In the said case, it was held that municipal employees would be entitled to get the benefit of pension with effect from 01.04.2000 as per the order passed by the State Government on 11.04.2000. The State Government had taken a decision keeping in view the financial constraints and extended the said benefit only from April, 2000 and not prior to said date to the municipal employees.
7. It is submitted by the learned G.A for the respondent/State that the payment of pension to all retired municipal employees is being made from the cut off date i.e. 01.04.2000 and the said decision of the respondent cannot be held to be arbitrary or reasonable as the retired employees are not entitled to claim the said benefit with effect from any prior date of the cut off date i.e. 01.04.2000. It is further contended that all the municipal employees of the State are being paid those benefits with effect from 01.04.2000.
8. In the present case, the petitioner has completed the age of superannuation on 30.04.1992 and he filed the present petition in year 2008 after accepting the payment of the pension, dearness allowance and interim relief from pension with effect from 01.01.1996 as per the order dated 14.07.1998. After having accepting the same, for about period of 12 years the present petition is filed.
9. Prima facie, the petition suffers from delay and latches and also the petitioner is estopped from challenging the same on the Principle of Estoppel. Merely because he changed his residence from Betul to New Bombay would not be sufficient to wriggle out him from delay and latches and also from the Principle of estoppel by his conduct.
10. Even otherwise on merit also, the petitioner could not make out any case for grant of these reliefs with effect from 03.07.1993. In the case of Bhavani Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P (supra), this Court has taken into consideration that the services of the petitioner are governed by M.P Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, hereinafter, referred as âRule, 1968â. These rules have been framed by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section 1 of Section 355 read with Section 95 of the M.P Municipalities Act, 1961 with regard to pension of the municipal employees, the State Government has also framed rules named as M.P Municipal Service (Pension) Rules, 1980 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub Clause (B) of Clause (IV) of sub-section 2 of Section 355 read with sub-section 2 of Section 8 and Section 95 of the M.P Municipalities Act, 1961. These rules came into force with effect from 1970. The revised pay scales of the employees as per the recommendation of the 5 t h Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1996 in accordance with M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1998 by order dated 17.11.1998, the State Government informed the Director, Urban Administration and all the Commissioners of Municipal Corporations and Councils that it has no objection with regard to grant of aforesaid pay scales to the employees of Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils. Aforesaid local bodies could grant the pay scale in accordance with the 5 th Pay Commission to its employees looking to the establishment expenditure and their income.
11. On 11.04.2000, taking into consideration the financial constraints of the legal bodies, the State Government issued an order that the pensioners of the legal bodies would be entitled to get benefit of pension at par with the Government pensioners with effect from 01.04.2000 and not prior to that. It is already submitted that the State Government is not providing any aid to the municipal fund and the special pension fund has to be operated only out of contribution received from the municipalities and deduction made from octroi compensation (later entry tax) payable to said municipalities.
12. In the case of Bhavani Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P (supra), the Court has taken into consideration the contention that the cut off date i.e. 01.04.2000 fixed by the State Government by order dated 11.04.2000 in respect of retired municipal employees is not arbitrary. Thus, the issue raised in the present case is squarely covered by judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Bhavani Shankar and Others Vs. State of M.P (supra). The petitioner has been granted benefit of 5 th Pay Commission w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as per recommendation of 5 th Pay Commission by order dated 14.07.1998 which was accepted by him without protest. He filed present petition in year 2008 after delay of more than 10 years. He could also not establish his right to get the same w.e.f. 03.07.1993. A specific statement made by learned Government Advocate that all the retired municipal employees are getting the benefits only with effect from 01.04.2000 in view of decision of the State Government and the judgment passed in the case of Bhavani Prasad and Others Vs. State of M.P (supra).
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The petition is dismissed.
14. No order as to costs.
(V.K.Shukla) JUDGE anu