SATISH SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner a retired Member Judge of Industrial Court, M.P. has approached this Court by way of filing this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, ventilating his grievance against the recovery order dated 28.06.2011 and also claiming the benefit of proper fixation of pension after the release of DA w.e.f. 01.04.2004 on the grounds that the petitioner was initially appointed in the Labour Judiciary under the provisions of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1961 and the Rules made in the year 1965. In terms of the decisions taken by the respondents/State, after deciding certain writ petitions and after decision of the Apex Court, the petitioner was to be fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 16750-20500 notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and accordingly his pension was to be fixed. While doing so, the DA which was to be paid to the petitioner in tune of the Rules made in the year 2003 was not added with his salary as a result the petitioner suffered the monetary loss. Even his pension after retirement has not been fixed properly, therefore, he is required to file the present writ petition.

(2.) It is contended that since the recovery has been ordered while issuing the Final Payment Order to him, such order of recovery is also bad in law and is liable to be quashed. It is contended that in terms of the rules made by the respondents themselves, the Presiding Officers of the Labour Judiciary are also to be treated at par with the Judicial Officers of the State Government and that being so, the petitioner would be entitled to proper fixation of salary after inclusion of the DA in appropriate manner. If this is worked out properly there would not be any recovery from the petitioner. On the other hand, he would be entitled to payment of arrears of salary and pension. Since after demand, this has not been done even after filing of the petition before this Court and even after a direction given by this Court, a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner but a frivolous stand was taken by the respondents in said petition. However, since the lawful claims of the petitioner have not yet been settled and the recovery has been illegally ordered, the petition is required to be filed.

(3.) Upon issuance of notices of the writ petition, respondents have filed their return and have contended that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted to him in view of the fact that the provisions of the Rules as contained in Annexure P/3 are not applicable to the Members of the Labour Judiciary Services and, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to such benefit. It is contended by the respondents that the services of the petitioner were governed under the M.P. Labour Judiciary Service (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1965 for brevity), according to which Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit as is claimed by him. The Provisions were made in the Rules subsequently framed known as 'M.P. Labour Judicial (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006', which were framed after the retirement of the petitioner from service and, therefore, the said Rule would not be applicable to the petitioner. That being so, it is contended that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and is thus liable to be dismissed.