DIPAK MISRA, J. - (1.) COMMON questions of law being involved in this batch of writ petitions, it was heard analogously and is hereby disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of clarity and convenience we would proceed to adumbrate the facts in W.P. No. 6005/2001.
(2.) THE petitioners, who were the employees of the M.P. State Electricity Board, accepted voluntary retirement from the M.P. Electricity Board (in short 'the Board') on various dates. A copy of the order of retirement in respect of four persons has been brought on record as Annexure P/1. The petitioners opred for voluntary retirement in order to discharge their liability towards their family and to provide better future to their offsprings. At the time of settlement of their case relating to grant of pension, their application for commutation was considered in accordance with the rules in vogue, and they were allowed commutation of pension in lump sum to the tune of 40% of the pension. In the order granting pension it was mentioned that 40% is the commuted value of the pensior and it would be payable only after the drawal of the first pension. It is setforth in the petition that though the petitioners were allowed to retire voluntarly the commutation value of the pension was withheld for the reasons best known to the respondents. The repeated approach to the authorities ended in sisyphean labour. When the petitioners were planning to have a better future, like a bolt from the blue they were served with the orders that there would be amended commuted pension in terms of the Board's notification dated 9 -3 -2001 by which the commutation of the pension has been drastically reduced. 2. According to the writ petitioners the deduction of commutation of pension in pursuance of the notification dated 9 -3 -2001 is arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as the said notification has been given retrospective effect, though law does not envisage such allowance. It is pleaded in the petition that tie State Government has framed a set of rules regarding commutation of pension i e. M.P. Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1996 (for brevity 'the Rules') and the said rules were notified on 21 -8 -1996 and were published in the official gazette on 13 -9 -1996. It is putforth that the Board in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 (for brevity 'the Act') adopted the rules for its employees vide order dated 30 -6 -1998. As the State Government by notification dated 7 -2 -2000 amended the provisions contained in the rules and the schedule was drastically amended and the number of years in respect of which the pension could be commuted was significantly reduced. It has been averred that the Pension of Commutation Rules, 1976 was withdrawn on 7 -2 -2000 and the new rules were adopted by the notification issued by the State Government on 26 -12 -2000, Annexure P/4. While the matter stood thus, the Board issued notification on 9 -3 -2000, Annexure P/5 adopting the notification issued on 7 -2 -2000 with retrospective effect from 18 -2 -2000. This order has been notified in the official gazette as envisaged under clause (c) of section 79 of the Act. It is urged in the petition that Annexure P/5 is illegal, irrational, unreasonable and arbitrary inasmuch as by virtue of this notification the vested right of the pensioners has been curtailed. It is also highlighted that the persons who had availed the retirement on the voluntary retirement scheme, were tempted to so avail because of the benefits conferred by the Board with regard to commutation value of pension. It is also putforth that there are 40 employees who have already been given the benefit of this commutation value as they opted for voluntary retirement but the same has been denied to them. With these averments prayer has been made to declare that the notification dated 9 -3 -2001 is ultra vires, being irrational and unreasonable inasmuch as it has been made retrospectively applicable as a consequence of which the vested or accrued rights of the petitioners have been totally affected and smothered. A return has been filed by the Board contending, inter alia, that under section 79(c) of the Act the Board is authorised to take decisions regarding the duties of officers and other employees and their salaries, allowances and other conditions of service. In exercise of powers conferred under clause (c) of section 79 of the Act the Board decided to substitute M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 for the M.P. New Pension Rules, 1951. These rules were made applicable to all employees in the Board's service as on 1 -6 -1976 and also to those who entered the Board's service thereafter. It is putforth that the said decision was notified on 3 -4 -1978 but the same was not published in the official gazette as it was not necessary under the Act at that point of time. The Board vide order dated 30 -6 -1998 decided that the employees/officers shall be allowed commutation to the extent of 40% of the basic pay w.e.f. 1 -1 -1996 instead of existing limit of 1/3rd of their basic pension. It was also decided that in such cases the commuted portion shall be restored after 15 years from the actual date of commutation. It is setforth that the notification dated 30 -6 -1998 was not published in the official gazette and hence, requirement under section 79(c) of the Act was not complied with. Thus, the said notification does not confer any legal right on any of the petitioners. Thereafter, as has been pleaded, the Board vide order No. 01/13/3395/55 dated 26 -12 -2000 decided to adopt the orders of the State Government contained in Finance Department notification No. B -25/13/96/PWC -IV dated 21 -8 -1996 and also its amendment from time to time including the notification dated 7 -2 -2000. This order dated 26 -12 -2000 was effective from the date of issuance of the order. It has been putforth that the order dated 26 -12 -2000 was also not notified in the official gazette. As the aforesaid order was not notified it was so notified in the official gazette on 9 -3 -2001 with retrospective effect from 18 -2 -2000. It was so done as the State had brought a notification on 7 -2 -2000 which was to come into effect from date of publication in the official gazette which eventually took place on 18 -2 -2000. It is urged in the petition that a notification can be given retrospective effect and no right can be claimed by the petitioners inasmuch as the benefits had not accrued in their favour because of any rules in vogue.
(3.) AT this juncture, we feel it apposite to refer to the factual matrix in W.P. No. 4813/2001. It is not disputed that the petitioner No. 1, B.K. Bathre, attained the age of superannuation on 30 -6 -2000. It is not disputed at the Bar that all other persons had availed the voluntary retirement. We have referred to this aspect in this case as it would be relevant for what we are going to lay down at a later stage.;