Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1052578',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1052578',
		(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Roop Singh Patel Vs the State of Madhya Pradesh - Citation 1052578 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1052578',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Roop Singh Patel',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2012-10-04',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.</p><p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.</p><p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.</p><p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :</p><p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.</p><p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”</p><p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.</p><p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”</p><p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'The State of Madhya Pradesh',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1052578',
	(int) 1 => 'roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1052578/roop-singh-patel-vs-state-madhya-pradesh'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>W.P.No.15240/2010 04.10.2012 Shri Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. The controversy involved in this petition is whether the services rendered by the petitioner in a Society which was running the Sarvodaya Higher Secondary School Surwari, before its taking over by the State Government are to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner or not. It is contended that the private Society constituted was running a school which was subsequently taken over by the State Government and an agreement was executed in this respect on 1.6.1983. In terms of the agreement, the entire property of the said Society with respect to the school was vested in the State Government. The services of the petitioner were absorbed in the Government department and he was granted the benefit of seniority from his initial date of appointment in the school. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and has retired on 31.3.2010. However, while fixing the pension of the petitioner, the period spent by him in the Society services is not being counted, therefore, he was required to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition. Though a return has been filed, but nothing special except the provisions of Rule 13 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) has been referred stating that the entire period after the absorption is to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner and, as such, nothing wrong is committed by the State Government. It is contended that as the provisions are specifically made under the statutory Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Undisputedly, a similar situation has arisen for consideration before this Court when certain employees who were earlier appointed in Janpad Panchayat School, have approached this Court ventilating their grievance with respect to not counting the period spent by them in the services of the Janpad Panchayat for the purposes of fixing the pension. This Court has considered the law as was applicable. An agreement was formulated by the State Government wherein it was provided that the Janpad Panchayat or Janpad Sabha were liable to deposit the part of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme amount with the State Government for the purposes of giving benefit of services rendered by their employees in the schools for the purposes of fixation of pension. This particular aspect was considered in light of the provisions of the Rules aforesaid. The State Government is competent to grant relaxation in application of the Rules as per the provisions of Rule 79 of the Rules and in exercise of that power, the earlier Scheme was formulated by the State Government. This being so, the considered view of this Court was that if the Contributory Provident Fund amount is deposited by the Society or the Janpad Panchayat running the school, the period spent by the employees in the services of the said Society or Janpad Panchayat was to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension. In light of the aforesaid findings, this Court has rendered a decision in the case of Ram Jatan Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.4919/2003, decided on 27.11.2003). While considering these aspects, this Court has held thus :- “In these writ petitions, question involved is common. The petitioners have claimed that the services rendered by them with Janpad Sabha School, be counted for pensionary benefits.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. Facts are being noticed from W.P. No.4919/2003 – Ram Jatan Singh vs. State of M.P. and others. It is averred in the petition that petitioner was initially appointed as Primary School Teacher in Primary School Karanjia in District Durg vide order dated 15.09.1958. The said school was being run by the Janpad Sabha Bhilai. The petitioner continued to serve as Primary School Teacher under the Janpad Sabha till 30.09.1963, on which date State Government has taken over all the Primary and Middle Schools run by the Local Bodies including the Janpad Sabhas throughout State with effect from 01.10.1963. Consequently, all the employees including the petitioner became the Government servants from that day. Petitioner Ram Jatan Singh rendered the services till 30.6.1995. Petitioner was promoted as Head Master in the year 1972. The services rendered by the petitioner for the period 15.9.58 to 30.9.1963 with the Janpad Sabha have not been included while computing period for the pension. Only the period from 1.10.1963 to 30.6.1995 has been taken into consideration. Accordingly, pension has been worked out. Petitioner claims entitlement for the pension by counting 33 years of service. No reason has been assigned for not counting the period which petitioner spent in Janpad Sabha School. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others, 1987 MPLJ 50 and it is submitted that similar treatment has not been meted out to the petitioner. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the local bodies to deduct Provident Fund from the salary of employees and if they have failed to discharge their duty employee cannot be made to suffer. In certain cases State Administrative Tribunal has also directed to compute the period spent in Janpad Sabha as the local bodies as pensionable period in case of similarly situated employees.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. A return has been filed by the respondents. It is submitted in the return that Government of Madhya Pradesh in School Education Department has issued a circular dated 21.1.1972 and had directed that teachers who were on pension scheme in Janpad Sabha or Local bodies before absorption on 1.10.1963 will be entitled to count their service period in Janpad Sabha or Local Bodies towards pension. It was further directed that in case of teachers who were members of contributory provident fund if the amount of CPF deducted from the applicant as also the contribution of the Janpad Sabha along with interest has been deposited in the government account, on such deposit their service in Janpad Sabha will be counted towards pension. Circular (R-1) has been relied upon.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. It is conceded at Bar that matter is covered by the decision of this Court rendered in case of C.A. Bhakhare vs. State of M.P. and others (supra) circular dated 15/21.1.1972 has been considered and also effect of not deposit of such amount by local bodies and the similar submission raised to deny claim that CPF was not deducted and deposited, was rejected. This Court has held thus :',
	(int) 4 => '<p>“3. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner's services with Municipal Council, Bina and the respondent State Government are for a period of more than 10 years and if the entire service has to be counted for granting pensionary benefit, she would be entitled to a pension. The case of the respondent is that since she has not contributed to the Provident Fund upto 31 st March, 1960, she is not entitled to get the benefit of earlier service in accordance with Clause (1)(Ph) of Circular, dated 15/21.1.1972 (annexure R-1). After having considered the aforesaid submission, this Court is unable to accept the same. Contribution to a Provident Fund Scheme framed under a law is not dependent on the wish or desire of a Municipal Servant. Indeed, it should be the obligation of the Municipal Council to cover every Municipal Servant by the statutory scheme and make deductions from his/her salary and also make its own contribution. This obligation of the Municipal Council is required to be performed in spite of reluctance of a Municipal Employee. Under the circumstances, inaction on the part of the municipal Committee cannot be accepted as sufficient excuse for denying the Municipal employee benefits of the Provident Fund Scheme. Indeed, in the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 which according to this Court should be treated to be embodying general law on the subject, a defaulting employer is required to contribute the entire amount. Under the circumstances, even if it was to be assumed that the Municipal Council did not deduct the Provident Fund amount from the petitioner's salary upto 31.3.1960 this inaction of Municipal Council cannot be accepted as a justification for denying the petitioner the benefits of her past service. Indeed, the intention of the respondent is issuing the order dated 15/21.1.1972 (Annexure R-1) appears to be to give effect to the directive principles contained in Art. 41 of the Constitution and provide for old age of its retired employees. The intention being noble has to be given full effect to. Under the circumstances, Clause (1)(Ph) of this Circular cannot be accepted as covering a case where the local body for reasons best known to them has not deducted the Provident Fund amount even though they were bound to do so under Law. In view of this Court, this clause would only apply to a scheme. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to count her entire service for purposes of pensionary benefits. There is no dispute that if her entire service is counted, she is entitled to pension in accordance with law.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>4. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat her entire service from 2.7.1956 for purposes of granting pension and calculate and pay her the pension in accordance with law. It is further directed that though the arrears on account of pension may be paid in six months time, the pension for the month of November, 1985 be calculated and paid in December, 1985.”',
	(int) 6 => '<p>5. These petitions being similar, it is held that petitioners are entitled for the similar treatment as has been meted out to the other employees and petitioners are held entitled for counting their services rendered in Janpad Sabha School towards pensionary benefits under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Let pension be refixed, arrears be worked out and payment be paid within six weeks.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. Writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.”',
	(int) 8 => '<p>. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 9
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

. The law laid down by the Court in the case of Ram Jatan Singh (supra) is squarely applicable in the case in hand, inasmuch as, the previous employer has already deposited the amount of Contributory Provident Fund with the State Government as is indicated by the petitioner vide Document not P/5. This being so, the period spent by the petitioner in service of the Society aforesaid is required to be counted for the purposes of fixation of pension of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to count the period of services rendered by the petitioner in the school with effect from 1.7.1977 to 1.6.1983 for the purposes of fixation of his pension and to revise his monetary retiral dues and to pay the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of finally. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj.

Court	Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On	Oct-04-2012
Appellant	Roop Singh Patel
Respondent	The State of Madhya Pradesh

Roop Singh Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment