STATE OF M P Vs. SATISH SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed by the State Government calling in question tenability of an order dated 18-7-2013 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 3328/2012 (Satish Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and ors., 2013 3 MPLJ 691) Facts in brief go to show that Respondent, Shri Satish Shrivastava is a retired Member Judge of the Industrial Court, M.P., he was initially appointed as a Labour Judge under the provisions of M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1961 in the year 1965, he was promoted from time to time and at the time of superannuation on 30th of September, 2004, he was holding the post of Member Judge of the Industrial Court. He filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 5446/2005(s) and in the said writ petition, it was his case that after the M.P. Judicial Service Revision of Pay Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Pay Revision Rules of 2003) came into force, he is entitled to grant of pay in the scale of Rs. 16750-20500/- w.e.f. 1-1-1996 as recommended by the National Judicial Pay Commission. It was said that as a Member Judge, he is entitled to be treated at par with the District Judge in the matter of grant of pay scale and other benefits.

(2.) The dispute raised by him in the writ petition was to the effect that pay scale payable to a District Judge should be made available to him in view of the provisions of the statutory rules and the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. B. Renjith and ors., 2008 12 SCC 219. This writ petition was allowed and a learned Single Bench of this Court on 12-8-2008 held that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale, as is payable to the District Judge. In Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment rendered on 12-8-2008, the following directions were issued :

(3.) The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Bench was challenged before a Division Bench in W.A. No. 749/2008 and by a detailed order passed on 9-7-2009, the same was upheld and modified and SLP filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The Division Bench held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the pay scale notionally w.e.f. 1-1-1996 and actually w.e.f. 1-7-1996. In the meanwhile, as the respondent had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30-9-2004, action was taken and his pay was fixed in the scale as per the Pay Revision Rules of 2003, dearness allowance was also granted and revision of pay and pension was ordered. However, thereafter, on the ground that the petitioner is only entitled to the appropriate pay scale, as is payable to the District Judge, the dearness allowance as payable to the District Judge in terms of the Revision of Pay Rules is not liable to be paid, recovery was directed and an order was passed on 28-6-2007, whereby the dearness allowance payable at par with a District Judge was denied and recovery was ordered. His pension was also re-fixed on withdrawal of the benefit of dearness allowance, as was initially paid at par with the District Judge. Challenging this action, the writ petition in question was filed and the Writ Court having held that the dearness allowance at par with District Judge is liable to be paid to the respondent/ employee, this Writ Appeal is filed by the State.