Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imrat Das Panka vs M.P. State Electricity Board on 9 February, 2018
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.A. No.126/2018
Imrat Das Panka
Vs.
M.P. State Electricity Board & Anr.
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ajeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anshuman Swamy, Advocate for the respondents/
State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 6/2/2018
JUDGMENT
(Jabalpur, dated .02.2018 ) Per: Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.-
Heard on I.A. No.1118/2018 which is an application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present intra court appeal.
2. It has been stated in the application that after the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 17.1.2013, the appellant has filed the review petition which was disposed of 2 by order dated 5.7.2013 and as per the order passed in the Review Petition the appellant has submitted a representatin on 11.7.2013 but the respondents have not taken any decision. It is further submitted that the case of similarly situated employees challenging the similar order of termination has been allowed by this Court on 19.7.2016 and after coming to know about the said order and obtaining copy of the same, the present appeal is filed. The delay in filing this appeal is bonafide.
3. Considering the aforesaid averments made in the application which is supported by an affidavit, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A. No.1118/2018 is allowed. Delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
4. Counsel for the parties are also heard on the question of admission of appeal.
5. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as a Lineman on daily wage basis on 26.2.1993 in Rural Electricity Cooperative Society, Mandla. The aforesaid society had been formed by the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board for supply of electricity in rural areas. The Government of M.P. submitted a petition to the M.P. State Electricity 3 Regulatory Commission for revocation of licences granted to the Rural Electricity Cooperative Societies. Thereafter, the Commission vide order dated 20.2.2002 directed revocation of licences subject to the terms and conditions which are mentioned in paragraph 20 of the order. Paragraph 20(ii) provided that the cases of the daily wage employees of the societies shall be considered for absorption by the Board and in case the aforesaid employees are not found eligible for absorption, appropriate action for removal of their services shall be taken within a period of two years from the date of cancellation of license. The aforesaid order does not lay down any parameters for screening of the cases of daily wage employees for absorption. Accordingly, the services of the appellant were terminated. The appellant filed W.P. No.6364/2012 challenging the order of termination dated 12.4.2012 and also challenged the action of the respondents in not absorbing his services.
6. In writ petition, respondents submitted that they had taken the decision as per the Circular dated 16.5.2007 and since the appellant was not found fit for absorption as he had not completed 10 years of service and he had submitted a false marksheet by order dated 17.1.2013, learned Single Bench 4 dismissed the writ petition. Thereafter, appellant filed a review petition No.133/2013 and submitted that the case of the appellant was not considered for absorption in the light of directions issued by the Commission dated 20.2.2002 as the departmental enquiry was pending against him and his case for absorption was deferred. In the said Review petition, the stand of the respondents was the same that the case of the appellant was considered for absorption but he was not found fit. After consideration of the record, this Court found that the case of the appellant for absorption was not considered by the respondents in light of order dated 20.2.2002 and therefore, modified the order of learned Single Bench and issued following directions :-
"For aforementioned reasons, the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by this Court is modified and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in the light of paragraph 20(ii) of the order dated 20.2.2002 issued by Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Regulatory Commission within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the review petition stands disposed 5 of."
7. It is not in dispute that the representation of the appellant submitted as per order dated 5.7.2013 passed in R.P. No.133/2013 is still pending before the respondents. If the said representation is still not decided, the same be decided by the respondents as directed by this Court in its order dated 5.7.2013 passed in R.P. No.133/2013.
8. In the instant appeal the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ Petition No.W.P. 6364/2012 and the order dated 5.7.2013 passed in R.P. No.133/2013 are under challenge, mainly on the ground that the writ petitions, filed by similarly situated persons whose services were not absorbed and terminated, have been allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.7.2016 passed in Writ Petition No.6245/2012 - Ranjeet Singh Banjara Vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and Others and other connected petitions, whereby the Court has set aside the show cause notices and termination orders and respondents were directed to issue fresh show cause notice to those petitioners and thereafter to pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The order passed in the case of the present appellant was referred in the case of Ranjit Singh Banjara, however, it was found that 6 the case of those writ petitioners were not similar to the case of the present appellant.
9. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the contention of the appellant that he has been discriminated. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed as no interference is warranted.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
mrs. mishra
Digitally signed by DEEPA MISHRA
Date: 2018.02.13 22:17:24 -08'00'