CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that though as per the rules which were in vogue at the relevant time there was no bar that the petitioner will not get the full salary as prescribed under the rules, on account of his appointment as a member in the M.P Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter 'Commission' for short) yet such a claim made by the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 4th August 2012, therefore, he is required to file this writ petition.

(2.) IN short the claim of the petitioner is that under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and the rules made thereunder, the petitioner was appointed on the post of member of the aforesaid Commission vide order dated 27/06/2008. The rules have been made prescribing salary and other benefits to the Chairman and Member of the said Commission, known as M.P Electricity Regulatory Commission (Salary Allowances and other Service Condition of the Chairman and Members) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Rules ) in exercise of powers conferred by sub section 1 of Section 57 read with sub section 2 of Section 19 of Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 by the State Government. The rule 3 of the Rules prescribes that pay allowances of the Chairman and Members shall be as enumerated in the said rules. The proviso is made prescribing that if a Chairman or a Member is retired Judge of the High Court or has retired from service of Central Government or State Government and is receiving pension, he will get the salary as the member, minus the amount equivalent to the pension or service gratuity as the case may be. It is contended that since the petitioner was not an officer of the Central Government or the State Government, said proviso was not applicable in his case and he was entitled to get the salary as prescribed in Rule 3 of Rules without any deduction of pension. It is contended that amendment in the aforesaid rule was made only on 09/11/2009 substituting the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rules, and including the officers of the public undertakings or autonomous bodies of Central Government as also the State Government including the State Electricity Board. Since this amendment was made after the appointment of petitioner, the amended provision was not to be made applicable for the simple reason that under the M.P Vidyut Sudhar Adhiniam, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2000) specific condition is mentioned in Section 6 restricting any such change of service conditions after the appointment. It is contended that because of such a provision of law, merely because the amendment was made in the Rules by the executive, the right accrue to the petitioner was not to be taken away. However, such a claim of the petitioner is denied, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed.

(3.) THE proviso added by the amendment includes the Central Government or State Government Officers as also the officers of public undertaking or autonomous bodies of Central Government like National THErmal Power Corporation, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., National Hydel Power Development Corporation as also the Public Undertaking or Autonomous Bodies of the State Government, like Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board or its successor companies or equivalent organizations. This makes it clear that earlier in the Rules such officers of the undertaking or autonomous bodies were not included otherwise there was no question of making any amendment in the Rule 3 of the Rules. THE Rule is made prospective as nothing is said about this as to from which date the amended rule has come into force.