Ramkalesh Singh Vs. M.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1043227
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJul-17-2013
AppellantRamkalesh Singh
RespondentM.P. Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd.
Excerpt:
high court of madhya pradesh : jabalpur. writ petition no.14414/2011(s) ramkalesh singh & another. vs m.p.purva kshetra vidyut vitaran co.and others.present : hon’ble shri justice k.k.trivedi.j.shri rajneesh gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.shri mukesh agrawal and shri p.n.verma, learned counsel for respondents. order (17.7.2013) this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india is directed against the order by which it is informed to the petitioners that the revision of pay cannot be done with effect from 1.1.2006 in view of the revised pay scale since the petitioners.option was not made within the time stipulated under the scheme. it is informed to the petitioner that since the option is given beyond the time limit prescribed in the scheme, the change in the option cannot be allowed. 2: briefly stated facts are that the petitioners two in number are the employees of the respondent no.1. the pay revision was done by the state government by making m.p.revision of pay rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as rules of 2009 for brevity).the m.p.state electricity board as was existing at that time had adopted the pay revision rules of the state government vide its order dated 2.3.2009. certain clarification was issued on 17.9.2010. however, there was 2 no provision of refusing to grant the benefit of pay revision in case any option is not given by the employees. a circular was issued by the mpseb on 2.4.2009 to this effect, but the revision of pay of the petitioners was not done under the aforesaid rules of 2009, therefore, they made an application before the respondent no.4 which has been rejected by the impugned order. it is contended by the petitioners that such an action on the part of respondents is bad in law. a legal notice demanding justice was issued by the petitioners.but nothing was done by the respondents, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. in view of the aforesaid, a singular relief is claimed by the petitioners that the impugned orders contained in annx.p/6 and p/7 be quashed and the respondents be directed to accept the revised option form of the petitioners and to make applicable the pay scale as prescribed under the rules of 2009 referred to herein above and revise the salary of the petitioners with effect from 1.1.2006 and all the arrears of salary be paid to the petitioners with interest. 3: upon notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed their return and have categorically contended that since the option was to be given by the petitioners opting to get the salary in the revised pay scale within time as prescribed under the scheme of rules of 2009, but since such an option was given by the petitioners subsequently, in terms of the clarification issued by the respondents, option of the petitioners was not to be accepted. that being so, rightly the orders have been issued rejecting the application of the petitioners made with respect to acceptance of option. it is contended that nothing wrong is committed by the respondents and, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.4. this court has directed the respondents to produce the scheme which they have adopted, on record, and vide document no.7073/2013, the scheme has been placed on record. a bare perusal of the scheme will make it clear that specific provisions for giving option were made in rule 3 of the rules of 2009. it is provided in the said rule that an option is to be given for the particular pay scale in the prescribed form within three months from the date of issuance of the order. the period prescribed in the scheme is extended in certain circumstances. however, it is made clear in sub-rule (3) of rule 3 of rules of 2009 that in case option is not given within the period prescribed, it will be deemed that the employee concerned has accepted the payment of salary in the revised pay scale as prescribed in the rules and he will have to be paid the salary in the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006. in case the option is given within the time, the same will be final. 5: if it is prescribed that option is to be given within the stipulated period and if, the option is not given within the said time, automatically the revised pay scale would become applicable and the petitioners are to be paid the salary in the revised pay scale. merely because they have submitted certain option which was rejected being made after the prescribed period, still the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from the date of its application. this being so, if the petitioners have not given any option, they have to be paid the salary in the revised pay scale in accordance to rules of 2009 from the date the same was made applicable. if the salary of the petitioners is not fixed in the revised pay scale, it is a folly on the part of respondents. 6: that being so, the writ petition is allowed. the 4 respondents are directed to revise the salary of the petitioners in the pay scale as prescribed in the rules of 2009, duly adopted by them with effect from 1.1.2006 in appropriate manner, in case it is not yet revised. after revision if any amount is found due to be paid to the petitioner as arrears of salary, the same be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 7: with the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above. there shall be no order as to costs.                 (k.k.trivedi) judge a.praj. 5 high court of madhya pradesh : jabalpur. order post it for /07/2013 (k.k.trivedi) judge
Judgment:

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.

Writ Petition No.14414/2011(S) Ramkalesh Singh & another.

Vs M.P.Purva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co.and otheRs.PRESENT : Hon’ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Mukesh Agrawal and Shri P.N.Verma, learned counsel for respondents.

ORDER

(17.7.2013) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order by which it is informed to the petitioners that the revision of pay cannot be done with effect from 1.1.2006 in view of the revised pay scale since the petitioneRs.option was not made within the time stipulated under the Scheme.

It is informed to the petitioner that since the option is given beyond the time limit prescribed in the Scheme, the change in the option cannot be allowed.

2: Briefly stated facts are that the petitioners two in number are the employees of the respondent No.1.

The pay revision was done by the State Government by making M.P.Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 2009 for brevity).The M.P.State Electricity Board as was existing at that time had adopted the Pay Revision Rules of the State Government vide its order dated 2.3.2009.

Certain clarification was issued on 17.9.2010.

However, there was 2 no provision of refusing to grant the benefit of pay revision in case any option is not given by the employees.

A circular was issued by the MPSEB on 2.4.2009 to this effect, but the revision of pay of the petitioners was not done under the aforesaid Rules of 2009, therefore, they made an application before the respondent No.4 which has been rejected by the impugned order.

It is contended by the petitioners that such an action on the part of respondents is bad in law.

A legal notice demanding justice was issued by the petitioneRs.but nothing was done by the respondents, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed.

In view of the aforesaid, a singular relief is claimed by the petitioners that the impugned orders contained in Annx.P/6 and P/7 be quashed and the respondents be directed to accept the revised option form of the petitioners and to make applicable the pay scale as prescribed under the Rules of 2009 referred to herein above and revise the salary of the petitioners with effect from 1.1.2006 and all the arrears of salary be paid to the petitioners with interest.

3: Upon notice of the writ petition, the respondents have filed their return and have categorically contended that since the option was to be given by the petitioners opting to get the salary in the revised pay scale within time as prescribed under the Scheme of Rules of 2009, but since such an option was given by the petitioners subsequently, in terms of the clarification issued by the respondents, option of the petitioners was not to be accepted.

That being so, rightly the orders have been issued rejecting the application of the petitioners made with respect to acceptance of option.

It is contended that nothing wrong is committed by the respondents and, as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. This Court has directed the respondents to produce the Scheme which they have adopted, on record, and vide Document No.7073/2013, the Scheme has been placed on record.

A bare perusal of the Scheme will make it clear that specific provisions for giving option were made in Rule 3 of the Rules of 2009.

It is provided in the said Rule that an option is to be given for the particular pay scale in the prescribed form within three months from the date of issuance of the order.

The period prescribed in the Scheme is extended in certain circumstances.

However, it is made clear in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of Rules of 2009 that in case option is not given within the period prescribed, it will be deemed that the employee concerned has accepted the payment of salary in the revised pay scale as prescribed in the Rules and he will have to be paid the salary in the revised pay scale with effect from 1.1.2006.

In case the option is given within the time, the same will be final.

5: If it is prescribed that option is to be given within the stipulated period and if, the option is not given within the said time, automatically the revised pay scale would become applicable and the petitioners are to be paid the salary in the revised pay scale.

Merely because they have submitted certain option which was rejected being made after the prescribed period, still the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of revised pay scale with effect from the date of its application.

This being so, if the petitioners have not given any option, they have to be paid the salary in the revised pay scale in accordance to Rules of 2009 from the date the same was made applicable.

If the salary of the petitioners is not fixed in the revised pay scale, it is a folly on the part of respondents.

6: That being so, the writ petition is allowed.

The 4 respondents are directed to revise the salary of the petitioners in the pay scale as prescribed in the Rules of 2009, duly adopted by them with effect from 1.1.2006 in appropriate manner, in case it is not yet revised.

After revision if any amount is found due to be paid to the petitioner as arrears of salary, the same be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

7: With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

                (K.K.TRIVEDI) Judge A.Praj.

5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR.

ORDER

Post it for /07/2013 (K.K.Trivedi) Judge