Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT INDORE BENCH
S.C.Sharma, J.
Griha Nirman Mandal Adhikari-Karmachari Pensioners Association and another - Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board and others - Respondent
W.P. No. 1058 of 2011
Decided On : 09-04-2013
PENSION - REVISED PENSION - HOUSING BOARD EMPLOYEES - PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION - M.P. PAY REVISION RULES, 2009 - APPLICABILITY - DISCRIMINATION - M.P. CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1976 - APPLICABILITY - M.P. CIVIL SERVICES (MEDICAL ATTENDANCE) RULES, 1958 - APPLICABILITY - HOUSING BOARD REGULATIONS, 1998 - APPLICABILITY - INTERPRETATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - RATIO DECIDENDI - FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
Petition filed by a registered association of pensioners of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board, challenging the denial of revised pension benefits under the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009, to its members who retired prior to September 1, 2009. The petitioners contended that the Housing Board was discriminating against them by granting revised pensions to employees who retired after September 1, 2009, while denying the same to those who retired earlier. They also sought the enforcement of the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, to provide medical benefits to retired employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were entitled to revised pension benefits under the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009, at par with the other employees of the Housing Board who retired after September 1, 2009. The court found that the Housing Board's denial of revised pension benefits to the petitioners was discriminatory and violative of their right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court also held that the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, were not applicable to retired employees, as per the provisions of section 1(3)(a) of the rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to revised pension benefits under the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009, at par with the other employees of the Housing Board who retired after September 1, 2009? 2. Whether the Housing Board's denial of revised pension benefits to the petitioners was discriminatory and violative of their right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? 3. Whether the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, were applicable to retired employees?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to revised pension benefits under the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009, at par with the other employees of the Housing Board who retired after September 1, 2009, based on the following grounds: - The Housing Board was an instrumentality of the State of Madhya Pradesh and was governed by the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which provided for the grant of pension and other retirement benefits to its employees. - The Housing Board had framed its own regulations, known as the Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Regulations, 1998, which incorporated the provisions of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and made them applicable to its employees. - The M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009, were applicable to all employees of the Housing Board, including those who had retired prior to September 1, 2009, as they were governed by the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. 2. The court held that the Housing Board's denial of revised pension benefits to the petitioners was discriminatory and violative of their right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, based on the following grounds: - The Housing Board had granted revised pension benefits to employees who retired after September 1, 2009, while denying the same to those who retired earlier, without any rational or justifiable basis for such discrimination. - The denial of revised pension benefits to the petitioners resulted in a disparity in the pension amounts received by employees who retired before and after September 1, 2009, for the same period of service, which was arbitrary and unreasonable. 3. The court held that the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, were not applicable to retired employees, based on the following ground: - Section 1(3)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958, specifically excluded retired employees from the scope of the rules.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the Housing Board to grant revised pension benefits to the petitioners under the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009, at par with the other employees of the Housing Board who retired after September 1, 2009. The court also directed the Housing Board to complete the entire exercise of revising pension and payment of arrears of pension and pension within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the court's order. No order was made as to costs.
S. C. Sharma, J.:-
The petitioner No. 1 before this Court is a registered association of pensioners registered in the name of Griha Nirman Mandal Adhikari/Karmachari Pensioners' Association and the petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary of petitioner No, 1 Association.
2. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of all retired employees, who have attained the age of superannuation while serving the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. The contention of the petitioners is that the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board is a statutory Corporation incorporated under section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 and is an instrumentality of the State of Madhya Pradesh, It has further been stated that the retired employees of Madhya Pradesh Housing Board were earlier not granted pension and therefore, the employees preferred a writ petition before this Court claiming pension and the same was registered as W. P. No. 1940/93, Chandrakumar and ors. v. M.P. Graha Nirman Mandal and another. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by an exhaustive order and by the judgment dated 13-9-1995 this Court directed the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board to grant pension and gratuity to its employees. The respondent No. 1 Madhya Pradesh Housing Board preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and the same was registered as SLP No. 837/96 and the order passed by this Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioners' contention is that the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Chandrakumar and ors. (supra) was implemented in respect of retired employees and the respondents Housing Board started paying pension to the members of the petitioner No. 1 association, meaning thereby to all the retired employees. It has further been stated that the State of Madhya Pradesh based upon the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission has implemented the Pay Revision Rules, 2009 and the Finance Department of State of Madhya Pradesh vide memo dated 15-9-2008 has directed to grant 20% interim relief towards benefit of 6th Pay Commission recommendations to the government employees w.e.f. 1-9-2008 and also to grant arrears of dearness allowance from 1-9-2007 to 31-2-2008. It has further been stated that the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board in 202nd meeting passed a Resolution No. 4150-7/202/02/2009 dated 25-2-2009 for extending similar benefits to the regular employees of the Board and an office order has been issued on 2-3-2009, thereby confirming the interim relief of 20% and 27% dearness allowance along with the arrears to the regular employees of the Board. It has further been stated in the writ petition that in 205th meeting held on 15-9-2009, a resolution was passed for granting benefits based upon the recommendations 6th Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-9-2009 to the regular employees of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board. Not only this a resolution was also passed for applying the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009 w.e.f. 1-9-2009. A request was also made to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, Bhopal for grant of a formal permission in respect of payment of emoluments as per 6th Pay Commission Report on 7-10-2009. It has further been stated that finally consent was granted by the State Government for grant of 6th Pay Commission benefits w.e.f. next financial year vide order dated 15-4-2010. It has been categorically stated in the writ petition that at present the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board has passed a resolution for adopting the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009 w.e.f. 1-9-2009. Not only this, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that certain other orders were issued by the State Government for grant of an interim relief towards 6th Pay Commission benefits to its retired employees w.e.f. 1-9-2008 and the Housing Board in its 27th meeting held on 27-4-2010 rejected the prayer of the present pensioners for grant of 6th Pay Commission benefits at par with the retired government employees. The contention
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
