Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Sanjay Yadav, J.
Baldeo Prasad Ubnare and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13302 of 2013
Decided On : 19-09-2016
Appointment - Senior Auditor - Madhya Pradesh State Local Fund Audit Subordinate Accounts Service - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 - Rule 2(h), 5 & Schedule I, Rules 6 and 7 - Pension Rules, 1976 - Rule 15
Fact of the Case:
The court considered whether a Senior Auditor appointed as an apprentice under the Recruitment Rules, 1969 should be considered as an appointment to the Madhya Pradesh State Local Fund Audit Subordinate Accounts Service from the initial date of recruitment and joining as an apprentice or from the date when absorbed after completion of successful apprenticeship and probation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of Senior Auditors through direct recruitment is an appointment to the service from the initial date of appointment and not from the completion of the probation period. The court also held that the petitioners, appointed as Senior Auditors, are amenable to the provisions of Pension Rules, 1976.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment of Senior Auditors as apprentices should be considered as an appointment to the service from the initial date of recruitment or from the date of completion of successful apprenticeship and probation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the Recruitment Rules, 1969 and Pension Rules, 1976 to determine the date of appointment to the service for Senior Auditors. The court also relied on legal principles from previous cases to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court decided in favor of the petitioners, holding that their appointment as Senior Auditors should be considered from the initial date of appointment and that they are amenable to the provisions of Pension Rules, 1976.
Sanjay Yadav, J.
1. Whether a Senior Auditor (Apprentice) appointed by virtue of direct recruitment under Madhya Pradesh State Local Fund Audit Subordinate Accounts Service Recruitment Rules, 1969 (for brevity Recruitment Rules, 1969) can be said to be an appointment to Madhya Pradesh State Local Fund Audit Subordinate Accounts Service from the initial date of recruitment and joining as apprentice or from the date when he is absorbed after completion of successful apprenticeship and probation, is the issue which crops up for consideration.
2. The said issue crops up in the backdrop of the insertion of sub-clause (g) under clause (ii) of Rule 2 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Pension Rules, 1976).
3. Clause (ii) of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules, 1976 is an exclusion clause excluding the class of persons/government servants from the applicability of Pension Rules, 1976. Sub clause (g) whereof mandates that the provisions of Pension Rules, 1976 shall not apply to:
"Government servants appointment on or after 1st January 2005 to the services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, either temporarily or permanently."
4. Indisputably, in pursuance to the advertisement issued in early 2003, applications were invited under the Special Recruitment Drive to fill in the post of Senior Auditors (Apprentice), Assistant Auditor and Assistant Grade III from backlog of the post earmarked for direct recruit, the petitioners were selected as Senior Auditors (Apprentice) and were appointed by order-dated 25.8.2003. One such specimen order is brought on record as Annexure P/2. The appointment as evident from the order was on the following terms and conditions:-
1- f'k'kq{kq vof/k nks o"kZ dh gksxh ,oa bl vof/k esa mUgsa T;s"B laijh{kd ds in dks ykxw osrueku :i;s 5000&150&8000 esa izkajfEHkd osru :i;s 5000@& ,oa 'kklu }kjk Lohd`r vU; HkRrs ns; gksaxsA bl vof/k esa deZpkjh dks lS)kafrd ,oa O;kogkfjd izf'k{k.k fn;k tk;sxk rFkk foHkkxh; v/khuLFk ys[kk lsok ,lŒ,Œ,lŒ ijh{kk Hkkx&,d ,oa Hkkx&nks mRrhZ.k djuh gksxhA f'k'kq{kq vof/k iw.kZ djus ij deZpkjh dks ,d o"kZ ds ifjoh{kk vof/k esa j[kk tk;sxkA 2- f'k'kq{kq ,oa ifjoh{kk vof/k esa vkidk dk;Z ,oa vkpj.k larks"ktud u ik, tkus ;k fofgr foHkkxh; ijh{kk Hkkx ,d ,oa nks visf{kr Lrj ls mRrhZ.k u djus ij ;k vU; i;kZIr dkj.kksa ls vkidh lsok,a lekIr dj nh tk;sxhA rFkkfi fo'ks"k izdj.k esa larks"ktud dk;Z vkpj.k dks ns[krs gq, vkidh lsok,a 'kklu vuqefr ls lgk;d laijh{kd ds fuEu laoxZ esa fu;qfDr nh tk ldrh gSA 3- T;s"B laijh{kd ds laoxZ esa fu;fer fu;qfDr 2 o"kZ dh f'k'kq{kq vof/k ;k ,lŒ,Œ,lŒ ijh{kk mRrhZ.k djus dh frfFk tks Hkh ckn esa gks] ls dh tkosxhA rFkk ikjLifjd ofj"Brk ,lŒ,Œ,lŒ ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksus dh frfFk ,oa p;u lwph ds vk/kkj ij r; gksxhA vkids ifjoh{kk/khu dkykof/k ,d o"kZ dh jgsxh ftls iwjk djus ds i'pkr~ ;fn LFkk;hdj.k ds fy, in miyC/k u gks rks T;s"B laijh{kd ds laoxZ esa mUgsa v)Z LFkk;h ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;sxk ,oa in miyC/k gksus ij LFkk;hdj.k gksxkA 4- deZpkjh dh inLFkkiuk eŒizŒ esa fdlh Hkh LFkku ij foRr&foHkkx ds vUrxZr fdlh Hkh dk;kZy; esa dh tk ldsxhA lsok ds nkSjku dk;Z fujUrj 'kkldh; ;k=k ij laijh{kk/khu fudk;ksa dh laijh{kk djuk gS ,oa chek ;kstuk ds ys[kk ;kstuk ds ys[kk la/kkj.k ls lacaf/kr dk;Z vfuok;Z gSaA 5- nks o"kZ dh f'k'kq{kq ,oa ,d o"kZ dh ijhoh{kk vof/k esa fu;qfDr iw.kZr% vLFkk;h gksxh rFkk fdlh Hkh le; fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk, ,d ekg dh iwoZ lwpuk ij lsokeqDr fd;k tk ldsxkA deZpkjh }kjk 'kkldh; lsok NksM+us ij ,d ekg dh iwoZ lwpuk u nsus dh fLFkfr esa ,d ekg ds osru ,oa HkRrs dh jkf'k 'kklu dks ns; gksxh rFkk uksfVl de vof/k dk gksus dh n'kk esa mDr /kujkf'k Hkw&jktLo dh cdk;k dh rjg olwyh dh tkosxhA 6- deZpkjh dks Lo;a dh LoLFkrk dh tkap flfoy ltZu ls djkus gsrq LFky ls Kkiu izkIr dj esMhdy tkap flfoy ltZu ls djkdj flfoy ltZu dk izek.k&i= mifLFkfr izfrosnu izLrqr djrs le; izLrqr djuk gksxkA dk;Z ij mifLFkr gksus
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
