G.M.DUBEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only grievance of the petitioners is with respect to the communication dated 11.02.1999 contained in Annexure P-13 by which the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent No.2 has been turned down in respect of grant of benefit of V Pay Commission recommendations to the employees of the Madhya Pradesh Police Housing Corporation (herein after referred to as 'Corporation'). The similar letter was reiterated on 27.08.1999 as contained in Annexure P-15. Again the resolution was passed and sent to the State Government but again the same was turned down on 02.12.1999, as contained in Annexure P-18. Subsequent proposals made by the respondent No.2 were again rejected and such communications were made on 23.06.2000 and 02.09.2000 vide Annexure P-20 and Annexure P-22. The only claim made by the petitioners is that they are the employees of respondent No.2 Corporation, which is registered as company under the Indian Companies Act. There were no service conditions made by the Corporation governing the services of the persons like petitioners, who were employed in the Corporation. However, the Conduct Rules of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, made applicable to the Government employees were adopted. Thereafter, when the pay revision recommendations were made by the Pay Commission, the Board of Directors of respondent No.2 resolved to adopt the same for the purposes of revising the pay scales of the employees of the Corporation. A proposal to this effect was made, though not needed, for grant of approval of the State Government. However, by the impugned communications referred to herein above, since proposals are turned down, the writ petition is required to be filed. It is contended that under the scheme of establishment of the Corporation, State Government is not required to bear any financial burden for maintaining the establishment of the Corporation and, therefore, if the Corporation on its own was ready to grant benefit of pay revision to the persons like petitioners, it was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondents No.1 and 3 to reject the said proposals. It is further put forth by learned Counsel for the petitioners that now the Corporation has started earning the profit and, thus, reasons of not granting approval mentioned in the order impugned have become non-existent. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. The following reliefs are claimed in the writ petition :

(2.) Upon service of the notice of the writ petition, respondents No.1 and 3 have filed their return. They have admitted in the return that the respondent No.2/Corporation is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is specifically contended by them that respondent No.2 is the employer and is having the total control of administration and supervision on the employees of the Corporation. It is put forth by the respondents aforesaid that the salary of the persons like petitioners is paid from the funds of the respondent No.2 and not from the consolidated funds of the State Government. The employees of the Corporation are not to be treated as employees of the State Government. It is further contended by them that the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation are not framed and, therefore, if certain regulations or rules of the State Government employees are adopted by the Corporation, the employees of the Corporation cannot be put at par with the employees of the State Government. However, there is nothing to indicate as to why the benefit of revision of pay could not be extended to the employees of the Corporation if it is so resolved by the Corporation and if no financial burden is cast on the State Government. Merely it is said that the Corporation was not having the financial capabilities to grant such benefit of revised pay scales to its employees and, therefore, the State Government thought it better not to accept such proposals. How the resolution of the Board of Directors of the respondent Corporation was illegal or unsustainable, except for the financial difficulties of the Corporation, nothing is said in the return. However, it is claimed that the employees like petitioners working in the Corporation cannot be put at par with the State employees and are not entitled to benefit of revision of pay as was granted to the employees of the State Government. In view of these submissions, it is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The respondent No.2 has filed a return and has categorically contended that there are no service rules made by the Corporation to govern the services of the employees of the Corporation. However, certain employees are taken on deputation to work in the Corporation. There are certain contract appointments made by the respondent Corporation. The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 are adopted by the Corporation for the purposes of governing the service conduct of the employees of the Corporation. It is admitted by the respondent No.2 that when the recommendations of the V Pay Commission were received and the rules were framed for granting the benefit of revision of pay to the employees of the State Government, the said recommendations were considered by the Board of Directors of the Corporation and they resolved to grant the said benefit to the employees of the Corporation. However, nothing is said whether any requirement of law was there to obtain prior approval from the State Government, specially when no financial burden was cast on the State Government even when such a decision of Board of Directors is implemented. Why the matter was referred to the State Government is not clear but the only stand taken by the respondent No.2 is that since such a recommendation made by the Board of Directors was rejected by the State Government on number of occasions, the benefit was not extended to the petitioners. However, it is said that in view of the fact that the Corporation was running in loss at that time, the claim of the petitioners could not be granted.