Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 684
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Vivek Rusia, J.
Sanjive Kumar Naik – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh Principal Secretary Department of Labour Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7586 of 2023
Decided On : 07-12-2023
Petitioner Present in Person, for the Appellant; Shri Kushal Goyal, Deputy Advocate, General, for the Respondent.
Ad hoc services should be counted for seniority and all purposes after regularization/confirmation, and the benefits granted, including the senior pay scale and selection grade, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.
Headnote:
PENSION - Employee's State Insurance Services - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 1961 - Rule 8(6), Madhya Pradesh Employees State Insurance Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules - [12, 4, 6] - The court discussed the regularization of ad hoc services, grant of senior pay scale, and selection grade to Medical Officers, and the counting of ad hoc services for pension benefits. The court emphasized that ad hoc services should be counted for seniority and all purposes after regularization/confirmation, and the benefits granted cannot be withdrawn retrospectively.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Doctor in Employee's State Insurance Services, sought direction to release his full pension, gratuity, and commuted pension along with interest. The petitioner's services were regularized after ad hoc appointment, and he was granted the benefit of pay revision after the implementation of the 5th, 6th & 7th Pay Commission. However, the Divisional Pension Officer objected to the inclusion of ad hoc services for grant of senior pay scale, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's ad hoc services should be counted for seniority and all purposes after regularization/confirmation. It emphasized that the benefits granted, including the senior pay scale and selection grade, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively. The court also noted that the objection raised by the Divisional Pension Officer was unnecessary and amounted to contempt of the order passed by the Tribunal and the Apex Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the counting of ad hoc services for pension benefits, grant of senior pay scale and selection grade, and the objection raised by the Divisional Pension Officer regarding the retrospective effect of benefits granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that ad hoc services should be counted for seniority and all purposes after regularization/confirmation. It emphasized that the benefits granted, including the senior pay scale and selection grade, cannot be withdrawn retrospectively. The court also stated that the objection raised by the Divisional Pension Officer was unnecessary and amounted to contempt of the order passed by the Tribunal and the Apex Court.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the court directed the payment of the petitioner's pension along with interest at 6% per annum. The petitioner was also awarded costs of Rs.25,000 to be recovered from the concerned respondents.
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to release his full pension, gratuity, commuted pension, etc. along with interest.
2. Facts of the case in short are as under:-
2.1. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dated 30.06.1984 in the services of Employee's State Insurance Services (ESIS) as a Doctor. Vide order dated 30.12.1990 after the completion of the probation period, a certificate regarding confirmation was issued under Rule 8(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Condition of Services) Rules, 1961 for want of vacant posts. Along with the petitioner, as many as 73 doctors were declared permanent, meaning thereby, by the aforesaid order, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Doctor after the completion of the probation period.
2.2. The State Government decided to grant a senior pay scale after completion of six years of service and selection grade after ten years of service to the Medical Officer of the Public Health Department. Dr. Arvind Singhal working in ESIS approached the State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.1041/1992 claiming the same benefit of senior pay-scale and selection payscale at par with the Medical Officers. Vide order dated 06.06.1995 learned Tribunal directed the State Government to extend the same benefit to the Medical Officer appointed in the services of ESIS.
2.3. Against the said order, the State Government preferred the SLP which was dismissed vide order dated 12.08.1997. In compliance with the order of the learned Tribunal, the State Government vide order dated 03.05.2006 extended the benefit of senior pay-scale to as many as 204 Doctors / Medical Officers working in the ESIS. In compliance with the aforesaid order, pay fixation was done without raising any objection by the Finance Department or Treasury.
2.4. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted the benefit of pay revision after the implementation of the 5th, 6th & 7th Pay Commission. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired w.e.f. 31.03.2022. After retirement, the pension case of the petitioner was submitted to respondent No.5 / Divisional Pension Officer and he objected to the inclusion of a period of ad hoc services for grant of senior pay scale. On such objection, respondent No.1 clarified that vide order dated 03.05.2006, the benefit of selection grade had already been granted to the petitioner in compliance with the order passed by the Tribunal, despite that the Divisional Pension Officer did not issue the pension order.
2.5. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 again submitted an explanation vide letter dated 05.04.2022 but respondent No.5 vide letter dated 27.04.2022 reiterated the same objection. Again respondent No.3 explained in detail vide letter dated 24.08.2022. Vide letter dated 23.09.2022, respondent No.5 started dissection of the Tribunal's order as well as the order passed by the State Government and opined that before implementing the order of the Tribunal, the consent of the Finance Department of the Government of M.P. was necessary. Again respondent No.3 informed that the petitioner had already been granted the benefit of selection grade after issuance of order dated 03.05.2006. The petitioner also sent a legal notice, but respondent No.5 remained adamant about not finalizing the pension of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is before this Court.
3. After notice, respondents No.1 & 3 filed the reply virtually in support of the petitioner and respondents No.4 & 5 filed separate replies for opposing the relief claimed in the Writ Petition. Respondents No. 1 & 3 filed the return by submitting that the Director, Pension, PF and Insurance, Bhopal vide letter dated 06.06.2023 has directed the Joint Director, Treasury & Account for reconsideration of pay fixation in light of Clause (B) 4 of the Circular dated 16.10.2019. The Insurance Med
