- (1.) The petitioner before this Court, who is aged about 73 years, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the action of respondent No. 2 in not counting the past services rendered by the petitioner under the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset has drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment dt. 10-11-2010 delivered in the case of R.R. Gehlot v. State of M.P. and another, Writ Petition No. 6176/2006 (s). The contention of the petitioner is that he is also entitled for similar relief which has been extended to identically placed persons.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 - Municipal Corporation, Ratlam has argued before this Court that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 1996 and has filed the present writ petition only in the year 2011, hence, he is not entitled for any relief on the ground of delay and laches. He has also placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vichitra Singh Hoda v. State of M.P. and others, 2013 2 MPLJ 170.
(3.) This Court has carefully gone through the order passed in the case of R.R. Gehlot v. State of M.P. and another and the same reads as under: Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the matter, both the cases were heard together and a common order is being passed. Facts of WP No. 6176/2006 (s) are narrated as under:-- The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of respondents in not granting him pension by taking into account the services rendered by the petitioner with the Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam. The contention of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed in the services of Town Improvement Trust on 7-8-1965 and the State Government took a policy decision to abolish all Town Improvement Trust throughout the State of M.P. and a Notification was issued on 10th June, 1994 to that effect. Petitioner has further stated that he was absorbed in the services of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam w.e.f. 1-8-1994 as Superintendent. The petitioner has further stated that the State Government has thereafter issued a Notification dt. 6-1-1999 in the matter of grant of seniority and by the aforesaid order seniority was granted in the matter of pay fixation, grant of increments and all other purposes. Petitioner's grievance is that he has attained the age of superannuation on 31-3-2006. However, the respondents while calculating pension have taken into account the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 1-8-1994 only. Petitioner's contention is that once he has been granted seniority in the matter of pay fixation and for all other purposes, his past service should been taken into account right from the date of initial appointment and there appears to be no justification in depriving the petitioner in the matter of grant of pension by excluding the services rendered by the petitioner with Town Improvement Trust. A reply has been filed on behalf of Corporation and the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation is that the petitioner is entitled for pension only for the period he has served the Corporation i.e., w.e.f. 1-8-1994. He has also argued before this Court that the petitioner was a member of contributory provident fund and has received the benefit of contributory provident fund for the period of service rendered with Town Improvement Trust and therefore the question of counting past services in case of petitioner does not arise. Learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation has relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of Vichitra Singh v. State of M.P. and ors., W.P. No. 3669/2003 and his contention is that this Court has not granted the benefit to an employee who was transferred from the post of Panchayat Secretary to the post of Gram Sahayak and who was absorbed w.e.f. 31-1-1982. He has also relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of Subhashchandra Lalwani v. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No. 1370/2001 and the aforesaid case relates to deduction of contributions towards CPF Scheme and the point involved in the aforesaid is certainly not identical to the dispute involved in the present case. Learned counsel for the respondent has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. R. Veerasamy and ors., 1999 AIR(SC) 1768and his contention is that keeping in view the aforesaid judgment as the petitioner was not a member of pensionable service he is not entitled for the benefit of services rendered by him w.e.f. 7-8-1965 to 1-8-1994. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the matter is being disposed of at the motion hearing stage itself with the consent of the parties. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was an employee of Town Improvement Trust a body constituted under the provisions of M.P. Nagar Sudhar Nyas Adhiniyam, 1960, a body owned and controlled by the State Government. The Town Improvement Trusts were abolished by the State Government and a notification was published in the official gazette on 10th June, 1994. The petitioner was absorbed in the services of Municipal Corporation, Ratlam w.e.f. 1-8-1994. This Court has carefully gone through the order dt. 6-1-1999 passed by the State Government and the aforesaid order reveals that the employees absorbed in the service of local bodies were granted seniority by taking into account their past service. Thus, the petitioner, was also assigned seniority and other benefits flowing out of the seniority for the services rendered by him with Town Improvement Trust, Ratlam. Learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Corporation has vehemently argued before this Court that the Regional, Dy. Director Local Self Government vide letter dt. 5-2-1988 has held that employees absorbed in the services of local bodies will not be entitled for the past services and they will be entitled only for the benefit of contributory provident fund. Letter of the Dy. Director will certainly not supersede the order issued by the State Government and once the decision was taken by the State Government to grant benefit of the past services there appears to be no justification in depriving the petitioner in the matter of grant of benefit of the past services rendered by him with Town Improvement Trust which is certainly a body owned and controlled by the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment delivered in the case of Municipal Corporation Gwalior and another v. Ramsewak, 2002 2 MPLJ 148and his contention is that in a similar situation an employee serving Gram Panchayat was absorbed in the services of Municipal Corporation and the benefit of past services were extended by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dt. 29-10-2001. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment delivered in the case of Municipal Corporation Gwalior v. Ramsewak and the employee therein was working in a Gram Panchayat and after his absorption in the services of Municipal Corporation, Gwalior the benefit of past services have been extended by Division Bench of this Court. In the present case the petitioner was also working under an organization owned and controlled by the State Government and the State in its own wisdom has taken a decision on 14-9-1989 to extend the benefit of past service for other purpose and the respondents have also granted gratuity to the petitioner by taking into account the services rendered by the petitioner from 7-8-1965. Resultantly this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is certainly entitled for the benefit of past service in the matter of computing the qualifying services for grant of pension. However, as the petitioner has already received the CPF, the petitioner shall refund the entire amount of CPF to the respondents within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter respondents after receiving the aforesaid amount shall revise pension case of the petitioner by taking into account the date of initial appointment i.e., 7-8-1965 and shall release the pension of the petitioner along with arrears of pension within 6 months of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.;