Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Pithode vs Western Coalfields Limited Judgement ... on 4 September, 2013
---1---
W. A. No.566/2012
4.9.2013
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the
appellant.
Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the respondent.
This appeal is directed against an order dated 19.3.2010
passed in W. P. No.2490/2010 by which the writ petition preferred
by the respondent was finally disposed of by an order which reads
thus :-
"Shri Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
Shri R. P. Tiwari, learned Government
Advocate, for the respondents.
Petitioner is a retired employee, he was
initially working in the Special Area
Development Authority, Khajuraho.
Thereafter, his services were taken over
by the Nagar Panchayat, Raj Nagar,
District Chhatarpur and while so working
in the Nagar Panchayat, he retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.12.2009. grievance of the petitioner is
that period of service rendered by the
petitioner from 17.2.1973 to 31.6.1998 in
Special Area Development Authority is
not being counted as service rendered for
the purpose of grant of pensionary
benefits and other post retiral dues.
Claiming that period in question between
17.2.1973 to 31.6.1998 be counted as
service rendered for the purpose of grant
of pensionary benefit, petitioner has filed
this writ petition.
Even though various averments have been
made in the writ petition but it is seen that
claiming similar benefit another employee of
---2---
Nagar Panchayat Khajuraho one Thakur Prasad
Mishra had filed W. P. No.14760/2007 (s) before
this Court and a learned Single Judge of this
Court vide order dated 26.8.2009 Annexure P/13
has allowed similar petition and as per directions
issued in para 16 of the aforesaid order the
period of service rendered by the petitioner
therein in Special Area Development Authority
was directed to be counted for calculating and
grant of pensionary benefit and by allowing the
petition interest on arrears at the rate of 6% per
annum was granted. The directions issued by the
learned Single Judge in para 16 reads as under :-
"16. Having thus considered, this
Court is of the opinion that the
respondent State of Madhya Pradesh,
are not justified in rejecting the claim
of the petitioner for grant of pension on
the ground that the petitioner does not
have qualifying service. The
respondents are accordingly directed
to grant pension to the petitioner by
counting his entire service rendered
with SADA.The petitioner will also be
entitled for interest on arrears at the
rate of 6% per annum. The petitioner
shall also be entitled for interest on
delaying payment of leave encashment,
and on amount towards family benefit
fund scheme @ 6% from the date of
entitlement till it was paid."
Petitioner is also claiming identical benefit of
counting service rendered by him in Special Area
Development Authority, Khajuraho. For the
grounds and reasons already indicated by this
Court in the case of Thakur Prasad Mishra
(supra), there is no reason for denying the same
benefit to the petitioner. Considering the same,
this petition is allowed. By counting the service
---3---
rendered by him in Special Area Development
Authority as service for all purpose the arrears
and monetary benefit due thereof be calculated
and granted to the petitioner along with interest
at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of his
retirement till actual payment.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of with
the aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules."
Shri Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General submits that
though the services of the respondent were absorbed in the Nagar
Panchayat, but he was entitled only for one pension as is
permissible under M. P. Municipal Services (Pension) Rules, 1980
and he was not entitled for another pension under CPF Rules as
before joining the services in the municipality, the services of the
respondent were governed by the CPF Rules, so respondent was
contributing towards aforesaid funds and after joining the service
of Nagar Panchayat he is entitled only for one pension, but in case
order passed by the writ Court is maintained then respondent will
get two pension, one under the aforesaid pension rules and another
under CPF pension rules.
In reply to it, Shri Dhagat learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that a care has been taken under M. P.
Municipal Services (Pension) Rules, 1980 in respect of such
exigency in Section 2 (d) proviso which reads thus :-
"2. Application. -
.....................
(d) who have opted for pension scheme on or before 1st July, 1991 under the said rules but these rules shall not apply to those persons who were not included in this scheme and have retired/died or
---4---
otherwise left the service on or before the 4th June, 1991 :
Provided that the persons who had exercised their options under this sub- rule may be admitted for the pension scheme after depositing the amount into the pension fund equal to the amount of Municipal share of the Contributory Provident Fund together with the interest accrued thereon as on 1st April, 1970 and the amount deposited into the Municipal Fund from 1st April, 1970 onwards :
Provided further that the Municipality concerned shall deposit pension contribution from 1st April, 1970 onwards, in the pension fund as required under these rules :
Provided also further that an amount equal to the simple interest at the rate of 5% of the contribution for period from 1st April, 1970 to 30th June, 1991 shall also be deposited in the pension fund by the Municipality concerned."
It is submitted that the respondent is ready to deposit the amount into pension funds equal to the amount of Municipal share of the Contributory Provident Fund, together with the interest accrued thereon, as on the date when his services were merged with the Municipal Council and the appellant may make payment of pension under the provisions of M.P. Municipal Services (Pension) Rules, 1980. The aforesaid provision reads thus :-
"2. Application. -
.....................
(d) who have opted for pension scheme
---5---
on or before 1st July, 1991 under the said rules but these rules shall not apply to those persons who were not included in this scheme and have retired/died or otherwise left the service on or before the 4th June, 1991."
To this, Shri Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General has no objection.
From the perusal of aforesaid provision we find that the respondent was member of CPF pension rules before merging his service in the municipality and the aforesaid provision Rule 2 (i)
(d) takes care of such exigency.
In view of the aforesaid, we find that the case of the respondent deserves to the dealt with in accordance with the provisions as contained in Rule 2 (i) (d) of the M.P. Municipal Services (Pension) Rules, 1980 and accordingly the respondent is directed to make payment of the pension to the appellant. All the arrears and monetary benefits due thereof be calculated and released in favour of respondents alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of of his retirement till actual payment. Further pension be released to the respondent in accordance with the Rules.
With the aforesaid modification this appeal is finally disposed of. Nor order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Subhash Kakade)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Anchal