Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Madhya Pradesh Power Management ... vs Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal Pensions ... on 5 October, 2018
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1026610268 OF 2018
(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NOs. 52665268 OF 2016)
MADHYA PRADESH POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD. AND ... Appellant(s)
ORS. ETC. ETC.
Versus
MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL PENSIONERS
ASSOCIATION & ANR. ETC.ETC. ... Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1026910305 OF 2018 @ SLP (C) NOs. 58385874 OF
2016
AND
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1030610307 OF 2018 @ SLP (C) NOs. 3589135892
OF 2016
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State of
Madhya Pradesh has pointed out Section 5(1) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972, in which he stressed the language of Section
5(1) stating that in the opinion of the appropriate government, the
employees must be in receipt of “gratuity” or “pensionary benefits”
not less favourable than the benefits conferred under this Act.
According to him, therefore, the High Court is wrong in viewing
gratuity separate from pensionary benefits, and if gratuity as well
as pensionary benefits are to be taken together, then it is clear
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
NATARAJAN
Date: 2018.10.10
that what the employee gets under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
13:37:44 IST
Reason:
(Pension) Rules, 1976 is more than what he gets under the Payment
of Gratuity Act.
2
We are afraid. We cannot agree with the learned Advocate
General.
The Payment of Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation. If
there is any ambiguity therein, the ambiguity must necessarily be
construed in favour of the employee.
In our view, there is no ambiguity to start with inasmuch as
the disjunctive expression “or” between gratuity and pensionary
benefits must be read exactly as it is. We do not accept learned
Advocate General’s invitation to substitute the word “and” instead
of the word “or”.
In this view of the matter, we find nothing wrong with the
impugned judgment.
The second argument advanced by learned Advocate General is
that the pensionary benefits, in any case, would include gratuity
and that therefore on the facts of this case, what is to be paid
under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules is more
than what is under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
We are clearly of the view that when the Payment of Gratuity
Act speaks of “gratuity” and “pension or gratuity” being more than
that which is awarded under the Act, pension and gratuity must be
taken to be two completely different concepts in law which do not
at any point of time come together.
3
The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
......................J.
(ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)
......................J.
(NAVIN SINHA)
New Delhi,
Dated: October 5, 2018.
4
ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.8 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5266-5268/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 26-11-2015
in WP No. 14554/2015 26-11-2015 in WP No. 2544/2015 26-11-2015 in
WP No. 2315/2015 passed by the High Court Of M.P. Principal Seat At
Jabalpur)
MADHYA PRADESH POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD.
AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MADHYA PRADESH VIDYUT MANDAL PENSIONERS
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. ETC.ETC. Respondent(s)
(Only Application for stay in main SLP and 5838-5874 to be listed
IA No. 122875/2018-STAY APPLICATION)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 5838-5874/2016 (IV-A)
(FOR STAY APPLICATION ON IA 122884/2018)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 35891-35892/2016 (IV-A)
WITH
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 24772/2016 (IV-A)
(FOR ON IA 100048/2017)
Date : 05-10-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Purushaindra Kaurav, Adv. Gen.
Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR
Ms. Anuradha Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Varun Mohan, Adv.
Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv.
Ms. Meeta Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
5
Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Aditya Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. N.K. Mody, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Nikita Chitale, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Shorawala, AOR
Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG
Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
Mr. Manish Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR
Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.
Sarbajit Dutta, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Digant K. Deo, Adv.
Ms. Anushree Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR
Mr. Kabir Dixit, AOR
Mr. Waheb Hussaini, Adv.
Ms. Aasita, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP (C) Nos. 5266-5268/2016, SLP (C) Nos. 5838-5874/2016, SLP (C) Nos. 35891-35892/2016:
Leave granted.
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications shall stand disposed of. De-tag:-SLP (C) CC Nos. 24772/2016
(MANAV SHARMA) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (Signed order is placed on the file.)