Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
K.K.Trivedi, J.
Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal Abhiyanta Sangh and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 9860, 11083, 12298, 12302 and 22145 of 2012 (S)
Decided On : 12-09-2013
ORDER - Promotion Rules - Indian Electricity Act, 2003, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Reforms First Transfer Scheme Rules, 2003, Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 - The court discussed the protection of service conditions of employees and officers of the erstwhile Board under the 2003 Act and the 2003 Rules. The court held that the new adopted M.P. Public Service Promotion Rules, 2002, as done by the impugned order dated 29-5-2012 would not be applicable to the employees and officers of the erstwhile Board and their cases for promotion would be considered in terms of the Promotion Rules as amended by the said Board. The consequential action of promotion taken by the respondents in respect of such officers on the basis of merit-cum-seniority criteria as prescribed under the 2002 Rules, without any amendment is hereby quashed. Let the fresh consideration of the cases of persons eligible to be considered for promotion on the next higher post be done in terms of the modified criteria adopted by the erstwhile Board and fresh list of officers found fit for promotion be issued within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. Those who are working on the promotional post by virtue of subsequent order of promotion issued, would not be entitled to any seniority on the promotional post from the date of such promotion earlier granted and will get the seniority and benefit of promotion only from the date they are promoted in terms of the direction issued by this Court, if found fit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Association of Engineers and the Engineers working in the establishment of Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited and other Companies established after the dissolution of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board, challenged the adoption of the Rules of Promotion by the respondents Companies for the purposes of grant of promotion. The petitioners claimed that the adoption of the Rules of the State services by the Companies was bad in law and would not be applicable for those posts or vacancies which accrued prior to the coming into force of the orders of adoption.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the new adopted M.P. Public Service Promotion Rules, 2002, as done by the impugned order dated 29-5-2012 would not be applicable to the employees and officers of the erstwhile Board and their cases for promotion would be considered in terms of the Promotion Rules as amended by the said Board. The consequential action of promotion taken by the respondents in respect of such officers on the basis of merit-cum-seniority criteria as prescribed under the 2002 Rules, without any amendment is hereby quashed.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the protection of service conditions of employees and officers of the erstwhile Board under the 2003 Act and the 2003 Rules, and the applicability of the new adopted M.P. Public Service Promotion Rules, 2002, to the employees and officers of the erstwhile Board for the purposes of grant of promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the new adopted M.P. Public Service Promotion Rules, 2002, as done by the impugned order dated 29-5-2012 would not be applicable to the employees and officers of the erstwhile Board and their cases for promotion would be considered in terms of the Promotion Rules as amended by the said Board.
Final Decision: The court quashed the consequential action of promotion taken by the respondents in respect of such officers on the basis of merit-cum-seniority criteria as prescribed under the 2002 Rules, without any amendment. The court directed the fresh consideration of the cases of persons eligible to be considered for promotion on the next higher post to be done in terms of the modified criteria adopted by the erstwhile Board and fresh list of officers found fit for promotion be issued within a period of three months from the date of passing of this order. Those who are working on the promotional post by virtue of subsequent order of promotion issued, would not be entitled to any seniority on the promotional post from the date of such promotion earlier granted and will get the seniority and benefit of promotion only from the date they are promoted in terms of the direction issued by this Court, if found fit.
ORDER
This order will also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 11083/2012(S), Writ Petition No. 12298/2012(S), Writ Petition No. 12302/2012(S) and Writ Petition No. 22145/2012(S) as the common questions are involved and all the matters were heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the purpose of this order, the facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 9860/2012.
2. The petitioners are the Association of Engineers and the Engineers working in the establishment of Madhya Pradesh Power Management Company Limited and other Companies established after bifurcation of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board for brevity). All the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders, by which the Rules of Promotion have been adopted by the respondents Companies, for the purposes of grant of promotion and by the different Companies different orders are issued in this respect, therefore, in the different writ petitions such orders are called in question. The ground of attack to such an order is basically on the premises that under the statutory provisions such service conditions of persons like petitioners are protected and could not be changed to their detriment, therefore, the orders adopting the Rules of the State services by the Companies are bad in law. Another ground for challenge is that even if such an adoption was permissible, it would be prospective in nature and would not be applicable for those posts or vacancies which accrued prior to coming into force of orders of adoption. Since these two grounds are common in all the writ petitions, all the matters were heard together. However, the fact remains that in some of the cases, subsequent promoted officers have also been impleaded as party and their orders of promotion are also sought to be challenged.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are that the Board was required to be dissolved in different Companies in terms of the provisions made under the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Act for brevity). As a consequence of enactment of such a Parliamentary Act, certain laws were made by the State Legislature as well. At the same time, exercising the power conferred under the Act, the State Government made the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Reforms First Transfer Scheme Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Rules for brevity). While making the Act as also while making the Scheme, protection was granted in the matter of those employees and officers who were already working in the erstwhile Board. Their services stood transferred to the respective Companies formed in the State. The First Transfer Scheme also prescribes protection of service conditions of such employees. Prior to coming into force of the 2003 Act, the State Legislative Assembly already enacted an Act known as Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 2000 Act for brevity) wherein the re-organisation of the Board was prescribed and in the said Act also the provisions were made relating to the service conditions of the employees of the erstwhile Board. The Board has previously adopted the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Promotion Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Promotion Rules for short) by passing a resolution. However, certain modifications were done and the said Promotion Rules were amended by passing the resolution by the erstwhile Board, in the matter of fixing the criteria and the bench-mark for promotion on the higher post. These amended provisions of the Promotion Rules were in vogue when certain vacancies occurred, but because of the change of the policy, the respondents-Companies have adopted the Promotion Rules as a whole afresh, without even taking note of the necessity of the amendment or modification in the said Rules and has started the process of appointment by promotion and since these Promotion Rules, as adopted, would come in the way of the persons lik
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
