Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 670
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025
(@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019)
VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AKASH TRIPATHI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 5632-5653/2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 6915-6950/2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 14200-14230/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 4410-4433/2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 14272-14281/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 14282-14287/2021)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.13
17:13:34 IST
Reason:
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 1 of 20
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 8341-8342/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 8343-8344/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 16808/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 16809-16810/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 3805/2021)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. The present appeals, except the two mentioned
in paragraph 3 hereafter, assail the correctness
of the judgment and order dated 22.08.2019
passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in a bunch of Writ
Appeals whereby it answered the two questions
referred to it and held that the judgment of the
Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No.334 of
2015, holding that the employees of the Society
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 2 of 20
were entitled to pension, did not lay down the
correct law and further that the employees were
not entitled to the benefit of pension as claimed
by them but would be governed by the terms of
absorption which provided that pension and
gratuity would be admissible as per the rules and
regulations of the Society. These appeals further
assail the consequential orders passed by the
Division Bench disposing off Writ Appeals in the
light of the judgment of the Full Bench dated
22.08.2019.
3. The following two appeals that arise out of SLP(C)
No.23286/2019 and SLP(C) No.3805/2021 arise
from separate orders passed in contempt
proceedings whereby the contempt proceedings
were closed. In one of the contempt proceedings,
it was held that the employees had been granted
pension counting their service from the date of
absorption in the Madhya Pradesh State
1
Electricity Board , whereas in the other contempt
proceedings, the proceedings were dropped in
view of the judgment of the Full Bench dated
22.08.2019 referred to above.
1
MPSEB
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 3 of 20
4. The only issue which is relevant for adjudication
in these appeals is with regard to admissibility of
pension to the employees of the Societies who
were absorbed with the MPSEB and if the answer
to the same is yes, then what would be the length
of service to be counted i.e. whether the service
rendered in the Society would also be counted for
determining the qualifying period for calculation
of pension or only the service rendered after
absorption in the MPSEB would be counted.
5. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, large number of
Co-operative Societies were registered which
were involved in the work of distribution of
electricity in different areas. At some stage the
financial health of the Societies became poor and
they were unable to manage and control their
affairs, as such a policy decision was taken in
1995 to merge them with the MPSEB subject to
terms and conditions being set out in all
respects. In particular, with respect to the
employees of the Societies both regular and daily
wagers.
6. The policy decision of 1995 ultimately fructified
in the year 2002 when the Societies were
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 4 of 20
dissolved and the merger took place with effect
from 15.03.2002 notified subsequently vide
order of MPSEB dated 18.05.2004 and
14.12.2004. Further, the terms and conditions
for absorption were formulated and declared by
the MPSEB in its order dated 05.06.2004, which
are reproduced hereunder:
“1. The regular employees of the above
societies shall be taken over on the same
terms and conditions as existing in the
Society except that no deputation allowance
shall be paid.
2. Their pay scale will be the same which
they were getting before the absorption.
3. The above employees may not be
transferred out of the circle concerned, so
that no anomaly arises.
4. Their age of superannuation will be the
same as applicable in the societies.
5. Pension/gratuity will be payable to the
employees absorbed in the Board as per the
rules/regulations of the concerned society.
6. Their designation will be maintained as it
was in the society.”
7. Soon after the absorption, the employees’ Union
2
by the name Bijli Karamchari Sangh filed a Writ
2
BKS
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 5 of 20
Petition registered as W.P.(S)No.1151 of 2005
titled Bijli Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.State
Electricity Board and others. The relief claimed
in these petitions was with respect to quashing
of the order issued by the Regulatory
Commission dated 20.02.2003 and 15.12.2004
which related to the merger and absorption.
Further relief claimed was that the same benefit
should be extended to the petitioner therein as
that of the employees of the MPSEB.
8. During the pendency of the petition filed by the
BKS, another petition was filed by one Panchraj
Tiwari registered as Writ Petition No.1962 of
2010. The decision in the said writ petition was
carried up to this Court in Civil Appeal No.4371
of 2008 , which was decided vide judgment dated
04.03.2014, whereby, Clause 3 and 6 of the
terms and conditions of absorption were found
unsustainable.
9. Subsequently vide judgment dated 07.03.2015,
the writ petition of the BKS was decided and a
direction was issued to the effect that once the
employees of the society have been absorbed in
the services of the MPSEB for all purposes they
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 6 of 20
cannot be discriminated in respect of benefit of
regular pension which is paid to the regular
employees of the MPSEB. The operative part of
the aforesaid judgment as contained in
paragraph 14 is reproduced hereunder:
“14. Resultantly, the writ petition stands
allowed. The respondents are directed to
extend the pensionary benefits and other
fringe benefits to the absorbed employees
who are now the employees of M.P. State
Electricity Board. The exercise of passing
necessary orders in respect of pensionary
benefits and other fringe benefits be passed
within a period of ninety days from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order. The
writ petition stands allowed. No order as to
costs.”
10. This judgment of the Single Judge dated
07.05.2015 was challenged by the MPSEB before
the Division Bench by way of intra Court appeal.
The Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 preferred by the
MPSEB was dismissed vide judgment dated
14.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the MPSEB
preferred a Special Leave Petition which came to
be dismissed on 30.11.2018 and the review filed
against the same by the MPSEB was dismissed
on 23.04.2019.
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 7 of 20
11. In the meantime, multiple proceedings were
initiated by individuals claiming reliefs upon
their merger with the MPSEB relating to
th
promotion, applicability of the 6 Pay
Commission and modification of their pay
fixation etc. The Single Judge vide judgment
dated 03.04.2019 disposed of the bunch of
petitions and issued certain directions, wherein
direction no.(iv) related to entitlement of
pensionary scheme and other fringe benefits as
were applicable for the employees of the MPSEB
relying upon the judgment in the Writ Appeal No.
334 of 2015. The said direction is reproduced
hereunder:
“(iv)The petitioners shall be entitled to get
the benefit of pensionary scheme and other
fringe benefits, which are applicable for the
employees of M.P.S.E.B. as per the
judgment of Indore Bench in W.A. No.
334/2015 (M.P. State Electricity Board
(Now known as M.P. Paschim Kshetra
Vidhyut Company Ltd. Indore) vs. Bijali
Karmchari Sangh).”
12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the MPSEB filed
a bunch of Writ Appeals, the first being Writ
Appeal No.897 of 2019. The Division Bench, vide
order dated 27.06.2019 disagreed with the
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 8 of 20
judgment in the Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 and,
accordingly, referred the matter to the Chief
Justice to constitute a larger Bench for
adjudication of the following two questions:
“(i) Whether the decision in the case of M.P.
State Electricity Board (Now known as M.P.
Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd.)
Indore Vs. Bijli Karmchari Sangh, W.A. No.
334/2015 wherein it has been held that the
employees of the society are entitled to
pension in view of the decision rendered in
the case of Panchraj Tiwari vs. M.P. State
Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101, lays
down the correct law?
Whether in view of the decisions of the
Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Panchraj Tiwari vs. M.P. State Electricity
Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101, M.P. Poorva
Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. vs. Uma
Shankar Dwivedi, 2018 SCC Online SC
1461: Civil Appeal No. 9146-9148/2018
and Brajendra Singh Kushwah and others
vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and others,
SLP (C) No. 28516/2013, the respondents
are entitled to the benefit of pension as
claimed by them or whether they are
governed by the terms of absorption which
provides for payment of pension/gratuity as
per the Rules and Regulations of the society
concerned?”
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 9 of 20
13. By the impugned judgment of the Full Bench, as
already noted in the opening paragraph, it has
been held that the judgment of the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 did not lay
down the correct law and further that the
employees of the Societies absorbed with the
MPSEB would not be entitled to pension as
applicable to the regular employees of the
MPSEB but would be governed by the rules and
regulations of the Society. Consequent to the
answers given to the two questions referred to the
Full Bench, the Writ Appeals preferred by the
MPSEB were allowed.
14. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been
preferred by the employees.
15. In the appeal preferred by V.K.Joshi & Ors., the
impugned judgment of the High Court in the
contempt proceedings is of 30.04.2019 i.e. prior
to the Full Bench decision which is dated
22.08.2019. In the said contempt proceedings,
on the instructions and statement made on
behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the High
Court has held that the benefit of pension has
been given to the absorbed employees from the
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 10 of 20
date of their absorption. It was further held that
they would not be entitled to counting of their
service rendered in the society for purposes of
calculating the period of qualifying service for
determining the pension. In the other appeal
relating to contempt filed by the BKS, the
Contempt Court has closed the contempt
proceedings based on the Full Bench judgment
dated 22.08.2019.
16. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and have perused the material on record.
17. As the facts noted above would reflect, that
things have become complicated because of the
long duration during which litigation has
remained pending and also because of
multiplicity of proceedings. We will, however,
deal with the issues raised one by one and
ultimately these appeals may be decided by
invoking this Court’s power under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India, as otherwise it would
result into disparity and discrimination of
similarly situated employees.
18. First and foremost, the litigation which started
with Writ Petition No.1151 of 2005 instituted by
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 11 of 20
BKS had attained finality upto this Court, much
prior to the judgment by the Full Bench. To
reopen and reconsider the reliefs granted to them
on the basis of the judgment of the Full Bench
would not only be unfair but also unwarranted.
The lis between the parties arising from Writ
Petition No.1151 of 2005 stood concluded and
would be binding on the parties and, therefore,
whatever relief was granted to the absorbed
employees covered by the BKS petition will have
to be extended to them. It is apparent from the
perusal of the orders passed in the contempt
proceedings and also from the pleadings placed
before this Court, that the members of the BKS
have been granted pension. However, the period
of service has been counted from the date of their
absorption till the date of their retirement. The
claim of the BKS is that the period of service
rendered in the Society should also be counted
and treated as part of qualifying service for
determining their pension.
19. On the other hand, if the view taken by the Full
Bench is to be upheld, then the employees who
had filed the petitions, which led to the Full
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 12 of 20
Bench decision would not be entitled to any
pension at all. So, on the one hand, pension has
been awarded to members of the BKS, although
the period of service considered is not to the
satisfaction of the BKS. On the other hand, the
writ petitioners, who are parties to the matters
involved in the Full Bench judgment, would not
be entitled to any pension. We now proceed to
deal with this complex situation as to how to
formulate relief uniformly for all the employees of
the society who were absorbed by the MPSEB.
20. The employees, once absorbed, are required to be
treated on par with other employees of the
MPSEB, as held by this Court in the case of
Panchraj Tiwari vs. Madhya Pradesh State
3
Electricity Board and Others . This judgment
recognises that upon merger or absorption, the
original identity of the service ceases to exist and
complete functional integration must follow.
Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment is
reproduced hereunder:
“6. Integration/merger of services means
creation of a homogenous service by the
3
(2014) 5 SCC 101
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 13 of 20
merger of service personnel belonging to
different services:
6.1. Though it is difficult to have a perfect
coalescence of the services on such
merger, the principle of equivalence is to be
followed while absorbing the employees, to
the extent possible.
6.2. Though integration of services thus
postulates equation of posts, it is not
invariably necessary to prepare the
seniority list on the basis of the pay drawn
by the incumbent in the equated category.
It is always open to the authority
concerned to adopt a just and the
equitable principle on fixation of seniority.
6.3. Once a service is merged with
another service, the merged service gets its
birth in the integrated service and loses its
original identity. There cannot be a
situation, where even after merger,
absorption or integration, such services
which were merged or absorbed, still retain
their original status. If so, it is not an
absorption or merger or integration, it will
only be a working arrangement without
any functional integration.”
21. The terms of absorption relied upon by the
respondents, have further been relaxed by this
Court in M.P.Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran
4
Co. Ltd v. Uma Shankar Dwivedi and in
4
Civil Appeal No. 9146-9148 of 2018.
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 14 of 20
Brajendra Singh Kushwah & Ors v. M.P. State
5
Electricity Board and Ors. . Before this Court
in the case of Uma Shankar Dwivedi (supra)
statement was made by the learned Advocate
General for the State of Madhya Pradesh that it
had no objection in granting benefits similar to
employees of MPSEB from the date of absorption.
Order dated 02.08.2018 is reproduced
hereunder:
“The learned Advocate General for the
State of Madhya Pradesh submits that the
petitioners have no objection in granting
the benefits to the respondent, as were
granted to the employees of the Madhya
Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB)
on the date of absorption.
To this extent, there is an agreement on
both sides.”
Thereafter vide final order dated 05.09.2018, this
th th
Court directed for implementation of the 5 , 6
th
and 7 Pay Commission for the absorbed
employees. Further the order in the case of
Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra) was based
upon the judgment in the case of Panchraj
5
SLP (Civil) No.28516 of 2013.
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 15 of 20
Tiwari (supra)
. The order dated 27.04.2015 is
reproduced below:
“The respondent-Board has stated in
paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit as
follows:
“It is submitted that the Answering
Respondent in compliance of the
Judgment of this Hon’ble Court passed
th
in judgment dated 4 March, 2014 in
Civil Appeal No. 4371 of 2008 vide order
dated 24.12.2014 and clarification
order dated 18.04.2014 has decided to
grant the benefits to the petitioners at
par with the employees of the
Answering Respondents in the matter
of pay scale, dearness allowance and
th
other fringe benefits w.e.f. 4 March
2014 after calculating the benefits till
rd
3 March, 2014 notionally.”
The respondent-Board shall grant the
entire benefits to the petitioners as stated
above within six weeks.
The special leave petition is disposed of
accordingly.”
22. It is settled through these judgements that full
functional integration carries with it the rights
and benefits attached to the new service.
However, it is pertinent to note that the benefits
and relaxations given by the above judgments
have already been implemented and the State
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 16 of 20
had accepted the legal position of extending the
benefits from the date of absorption.
23. It would be wholly unjust to deny pension
benefits to the absorbed employees when they
are performing the same duties and discharging
the same responsibilities as other MPSEB
employees. Further in the judgment in the case
of BKS, relief has already been granted partially.
Thus, there cannot be two classes of employees
in the same organisation. One set with pension
and the other without pension. In such
circumstances, denying them the benefit of
pension solely on the ground of their origin in the
societies would amount to unjust discrimination.
We therefore hold that all the absorbed
employees would be entitled to pension in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case.
24. The remaining question is whether qualifying
period for pension should be calculated from the
date of their joining in the Society or from the
date of absorption into the MPSEB. The
entitlement for pension is governed by the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 17 of 20
and the relevant provision is Rule 3(p), which
reads as follows:
“3(p) ‘Qualifying service’ means the period
between the date of joining pensionable
service under the State Government and
retirement therefrom which shall be taken
into account for purpose of the pension and
gratuity admissible under these rules and
includes the period which qualifies under
any other order or rule for the time being in
force."
Further, Rule 12(2) provides that qualifying
service begins from the date the employee
assumes charge of the post to which they are first
appointed, whether on a substantive, officiating,
or temporary basis, in the services of the State
Government. Rule 12(2) of the Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Pension) Rules are reproduced
hereunder:
“ 12. Commencement of qualifying service.
Subject to the provisions of these rules,
(2)
qualifying service of a Government servant
shall commence fr6m the date he takes
charge of the post to which he is first
appointed either substantively or in an
officiating or temporary capacity.”
Rule 13(1) lays down that the service of a
government servant shall not qualify unless his
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 18 of 20
duties and pay are regulated by the Government.
Rule 13(1) is reproduced hereunder:
“ 13. Conditions subject to which service
qualifies.
(1) The service of a Government servant shall
not qualify unless his duties and pay are
regulated by the Government, or under
conditions determined by the Government.”
25. In view of the above, while the appellants are held
entitled to pension from the MPSEB, the period
of service rendered in the Society prior to
absorption cannot be counted. This is for the
reason that such service was not under the State
Government, and was not governed by its rules.
The appellants would thus be eligible for pension
from the date of their absorption into MPSEB,
from which point they became employees
governed by State rules.
26. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed to the extent
that the appellants shall be paid pension by the
MPSEB, with effect from their respective dates of
absorption. Impugned orders stand modified as
above. The respondents to implement the above
directions within a period of four months from
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 19 of 20
today and pay all the arrears of pension within
the same time.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………..J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 13, 2025
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 20 of 20
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2025
(@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019)
VIJAY KUMAR JOSHI …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
AKASH TRIPATHI & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 5632-5653/2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 6915-6950/2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 14200-14230/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 4410-4433/2020)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 14272-14281/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 14282-14287/2021)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.05.13
17:13:34 IST
Reason:
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 1 of 20
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 8341-8342/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 8343-8344/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 16808/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 16809-16810/2021)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS………………………OF 2025
(@ SLP(C) No. 3805/2021)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. The present appeals, except the two mentioned
in paragraph 3 hereafter, assail the correctness
of the judgment and order dated 22.08.2019
passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in a bunch of Writ
Appeals whereby it answered the two questions
referred to it and held that the judgment of the
Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No.334 of
2015, holding that the employees of the Society
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 2 of 20
were entitled to pension, did not lay down the
correct law and further that the employees were
not entitled to the benefit of pension as claimed
by them but would be governed by the terms of
absorption which provided that pension and
gratuity would be admissible as per the rules and
regulations of the Society. These appeals further
assail the consequential orders passed by the
Division Bench disposing off Writ Appeals in the
light of the judgment of the Full Bench dated
22.08.2019.
3. The following two appeals that arise out of SLP(C)
No.23286/2019 and SLP(C) No.3805/2021 arise
from separate orders passed in contempt
proceedings whereby the contempt proceedings
were closed. In one of the contempt proceedings,
it was held that the employees had been granted
pension counting their service from the date of
absorption in the Madhya Pradesh State
1
Electricity Board , whereas in the other contempt
proceedings, the proceedings were dropped in
view of the judgment of the Full Bench dated
22.08.2019 referred to above.
1
MPSEB
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 3 of 20
4. The only issue which is relevant for adjudication
in these appeals is with regard to admissibility of
pension to the employees of the Societies who
were absorbed with the MPSEB and if the answer
to the same is yes, then what would be the length
of service to be counted i.e. whether the service
rendered in the Society would also be counted for
determining the qualifying period for calculation
of pension or only the service rendered after
absorption in the MPSEB would be counted.
5. In the State of Madhya Pradesh, large number of
Co-operative Societies were registered which
were involved in the work of distribution of
electricity in different areas. At some stage the
financial health of the Societies became poor and
they were unable to manage and control their
affairs, as such a policy decision was taken in
1995 to merge them with the MPSEB subject to
terms and conditions being set out in all
respects. In particular, with respect to the
employees of the Societies both regular and daily
wagers.
6. The policy decision of 1995 ultimately fructified
in the year 2002 when the Societies were
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 4 of 20
dissolved and the merger took place with effect
from 15.03.2002 notified subsequently vide
order of MPSEB dated 18.05.2004 and
14.12.2004. Further, the terms and conditions
for absorption were formulated and declared by
the MPSEB in its order dated 05.06.2004, which
are reproduced hereunder:
“1. The regular employees of the above
societies shall be taken over on the same
terms and conditions as existing in the
Society except that no deputation allowance
shall be paid.
2. Their pay scale will be the same which
they were getting before the absorption.
3. The above employees may not be
transferred out of the circle concerned, so
that no anomaly arises.
4. Their age of superannuation will be the
same as applicable in the societies.
5. Pension/gratuity will be payable to the
employees absorbed in the Board as per the
rules/regulations of the concerned society.
6. Their designation will be maintained as it
was in the society.”
7. Soon after the absorption, the employees’ Union
2
by the name Bijli Karamchari Sangh filed a Writ
2
BKS
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 5 of 20
Petition registered as W.P.(S)No.1151 of 2005
titled Bijli Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.State
Electricity Board and others. The relief claimed
in these petitions was with respect to quashing
of the order issued by the Regulatory
Commission dated 20.02.2003 and 15.12.2004
which related to the merger and absorption.
Further relief claimed was that the same benefit
should be extended to the petitioner therein as
that of the employees of the MPSEB.
8. During the pendency of the petition filed by the
BKS, another petition was filed by one Panchraj
Tiwari registered as Writ Petition No.1962 of
2010. The decision in the said writ petition was
carried up to this Court in Civil Appeal No.4371
of 2008 , which was decided vide judgment dated
04.03.2014, whereby, Clause 3 and 6 of the
terms and conditions of absorption were found
unsustainable.
9. Subsequently vide judgment dated 07.03.2015,
the writ petition of the BKS was decided and a
direction was issued to the effect that once the
employees of the society have been absorbed in
the services of the MPSEB for all purposes they
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 6 of 20
cannot be discriminated in respect of benefit of
regular pension which is paid to the regular
employees of the MPSEB. The operative part of
the aforesaid judgment as contained in
paragraph 14 is reproduced hereunder:
“14. Resultantly, the writ petition stands
allowed. The respondents are directed to
extend the pensionary benefits and other
fringe benefits to the absorbed employees
who are now the employees of M.P. State
Electricity Board. The exercise of passing
necessary orders in respect of pensionary
benefits and other fringe benefits be passed
within a period of ninety days from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order. The
writ petition stands allowed. No order as to
costs.”
10. This judgment of the Single Judge dated
07.05.2015 was challenged by the MPSEB before
the Division Bench by way of intra Court appeal.
The Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 preferred by the
MPSEB was dismissed vide judgment dated
14.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the MPSEB
preferred a Special Leave Petition which came to
be dismissed on 30.11.2018 and the review filed
against the same by the MPSEB was dismissed
on 23.04.2019.
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 7 of 20
11. In the meantime, multiple proceedings were
initiated by individuals claiming reliefs upon
their merger with the MPSEB relating to
th
promotion, applicability of the 6 Pay
Commission and modification of their pay
fixation etc. The Single Judge vide judgment
dated 03.04.2019 disposed of the bunch of
petitions and issued certain directions, wherein
direction no.(iv) related to entitlement of
pensionary scheme and other fringe benefits as
were applicable for the employees of the MPSEB
relying upon the judgment in the Writ Appeal No.
334 of 2015. The said direction is reproduced
hereunder:
“(iv)The petitioners shall be entitled to get
the benefit of pensionary scheme and other
fringe benefits, which are applicable for the
employees of M.P.S.E.B. as per the
judgment of Indore Bench in W.A. No.
334/2015 (M.P. State Electricity Board
(Now known as M.P. Paschim Kshetra
Vidhyut Company Ltd. Indore) vs. Bijali
Karmchari Sangh).”
12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the MPSEB filed
a bunch of Writ Appeals, the first being Writ
Appeal No.897 of 2019. The Division Bench, vide
order dated 27.06.2019 disagreed with the
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 8 of 20
judgment in the Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 and,
accordingly, referred the matter to the Chief
Justice to constitute a larger Bench for
adjudication of the following two questions:
“(i) Whether the decision in the case of M.P.
State Electricity Board (Now known as M.P.
Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd.)
Indore Vs. Bijli Karmchari Sangh, W.A. No.
334/2015 wherein it has been held that the
employees of the society are entitled to
pension in view of the decision rendered in
the case of Panchraj Tiwari vs. M.P. State
Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101, lays
down the correct law?
Whether in view of the decisions of the
Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Panchraj Tiwari vs. M.P. State Electricity
Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101, M.P. Poorva
Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. vs. Uma
Shankar Dwivedi, 2018 SCC Online SC
1461: Civil Appeal No. 9146-9148/2018
and Brajendra Singh Kushwah and others
vs. M.P. State Electricity Board and others,
SLP (C) No. 28516/2013, the respondents
are entitled to the benefit of pension as
claimed by them or whether they are
governed by the terms of absorption which
provides for payment of pension/gratuity as
per the Rules and Regulations of the society
concerned?”
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 9 of 20
13. By the impugned judgment of the Full Bench, as
already noted in the opening paragraph, it has
been held that the judgment of the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 did not lay
down the correct law and further that the
employees of the Societies absorbed with the
MPSEB would not be entitled to pension as
applicable to the regular employees of the
MPSEB but would be governed by the rules and
regulations of the Society. Consequent to the
answers given to the two questions referred to the
Full Bench, the Writ Appeals preferred by the
MPSEB were allowed.
14. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been
preferred by the employees.
15. In the appeal preferred by V.K.Joshi & Ors., the
impugned judgment of the High Court in the
contempt proceedings is of 30.04.2019 i.e. prior
to the Full Bench decision which is dated
22.08.2019. In the said contempt proceedings,
on the instructions and statement made on
behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the High
Court has held that the benefit of pension has
been given to the absorbed employees from the
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 10 of 20
date of their absorption. It was further held that
they would not be entitled to counting of their
service rendered in the society for purposes of
calculating the period of qualifying service for
determining the pension. In the other appeal
relating to contempt filed by the BKS, the
Contempt Court has closed the contempt
proceedings based on the Full Bench judgment
dated 22.08.2019.
16. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and have perused the material on record.
17. As the facts noted above would reflect, that
things have become complicated because of the
long duration during which litigation has
remained pending and also because of
multiplicity of proceedings. We will, however,
deal with the issues raised one by one and
ultimately these appeals may be decided by
invoking this Court’s power under Article 142 of
the Constitution of India, as otherwise it would
result into disparity and discrimination of
similarly situated employees.
18. First and foremost, the litigation which started
with Writ Petition No.1151 of 2005 instituted by
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 11 of 20
BKS had attained finality upto this Court, much
prior to the judgment by the Full Bench. To
reopen and reconsider the reliefs granted to them
on the basis of the judgment of the Full Bench
would not only be unfair but also unwarranted.
The lis between the parties arising from Writ
Petition No.1151 of 2005 stood concluded and
would be binding on the parties and, therefore,
whatever relief was granted to the absorbed
employees covered by the BKS petition will have
to be extended to them. It is apparent from the
perusal of the orders passed in the contempt
proceedings and also from the pleadings placed
before this Court, that the members of the BKS
have been granted pension. However, the period
of service has been counted from the date of their
absorption till the date of their retirement. The
claim of the BKS is that the period of service
rendered in the Society should also be counted
and treated as part of qualifying service for
determining their pension.
19. On the other hand, if the view taken by the Full
Bench is to be upheld, then the employees who
had filed the petitions, which led to the Full
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 12 of 20
Bench decision would not be entitled to any
pension at all. So, on the one hand, pension has
been awarded to members of the BKS, although
the period of service considered is not to the
satisfaction of the BKS. On the other hand, the
writ petitioners, who are parties to the matters
involved in the Full Bench judgment, would not
be entitled to any pension. We now proceed to
deal with this complex situation as to how to
formulate relief uniformly for all the employees of
the society who were absorbed by the MPSEB.
20. The employees, once absorbed, are required to be
treated on par with other employees of the
MPSEB, as held by this Court in the case of
Panchraj Tiwari vs. Madhya Pradesh State
3
Electricity Board and Others . This judgment
recognises that upon merger or absorption, the
original identity of the service ceases to exist and
complete functional integration must follow.
Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment is
reproduced hereunder:
“6. Integration/merger of services means
creation of a homogenous service by the
3
(2014) 5 SCC 101
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 13 of 20
merger of service personnel belonging to
different services:
6.1. Though it is difficult to have a perfect
coalescence of the services on such
merger, the principle of equivalence is to be
followed while absorbing the employees, to
the extent possible.
6.2. Though integration of services thus
postulates equation of posts, it is not
invariably necessary to prepare the
seniority list on the basis of the pay drawn
by the incumbent in the equated category.
It is always open to the authority
concerned to adopt a just and the
equitable principle on fixation of seniority.
6.3. Once a service is merged with
another service, the merged service gets its
birth in the integrated service and loses its
original identity. There cannot be a
situation, where even after merger,
absorption or integration, such services
which were merged or absorbed, still retain
their original status. If so, it is not an
absorption or merger or integration, it will
only be a working arrangement without
any functional integration.”
21. The terms of absorption relied upon by the
respondents, have further been relaxed by this
Court in M.P.Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran
4
Co. Ltd v. Uma Shankar Dwivedi and in
4
Civil Appeal No. 9146-9148 of 2018.
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 14 of 20
Brajendra Singh Kushwah & Ors v. M.P. State
5
Electricity Board and Ors. . Before this Court
in the case of Uma Shankar Dwivedi (supra)
statement was made by the learned Advocate
General for the State of Madhya Pradesh that it
had no objection in granting benefits similar to
employees of MPSEB from the date of absorption.
Order dated 02.08.2018 is reproduced
hereunder:
“The learned Advocate General for the
State of Madhya Pradesh submits that the
petitioners have no objection in granting
the benefits to the respondent, as were
granted to the employees of the Madhya
Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB)
on the date of absorption.
To this extent, there is an agreement on
both sides.”
Thereafter vide final order dated 05.09.2018, this
th th
Court directed for implementation of the 5 , 6
th
and 7 Pay Commission for the absorbed
employees. Further the order in the case of
Brajendra Singh Kushwah (supra) was based
upon the judgment in the case of Panchraj
5
SLP (Civil) No.28516 of 2013.
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 15 of 20
Tiwari (supra)
. The order dated 27.04.2015 is
reproduced below:
“The respondent-Board has stated in
paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit as
follows:
“It is submitted that the Answering
Respondent in compliance of the
Judgment of this Hon’ble Court passed
th
in judgment dated 4 March, 2014 in
Civil Appeal No. 4371 of 2008 vide order
dated 24.12.2014 and clarification
order dated 18.04.2014 has decided to
grant the benefits to the petitioners at
par with the employees of the
Answering Respondents in the matter
of pay scale, dearness allowance and
th
other fringe benefits w.e.f. 4 March
2014 after calculating the benefits till
rd
3 March, 2014 notionally.”
The respondent-Board shall grant the
entire benefits to the petitioners as stated
above within six weeks.
The special leave petition is disposed of
accordingly.”
22. It is settled through these judgements that full
functional integration carries with it the rights
and benefits attached to the new service.
However, it is pertinent to note that the benefits
and relaxations given by the above judgments
have already been implemented and the State
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 16 of 20
had accepted the legal position of extending the
benefits from the date of absorption.
23. It would be wholly unjust to deny pension
benefits to the absorbed employees when they
are performing the same duties and discharging
the same responsibilities as other MPSEB
employees. Further in the judgment in the case
of BKS, relief has already been granted partially.
Thus, there cannot be two classes of employees
in the same organisation. One set with pension
and the other without pension. In such
circumstances, denying them the benefit of
pension solely on the ground of their origin in the
societies would amount to unjust discrimination.
We therefore hold that all the absorbed
employees would be entitled to pension in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the present
case.
24. The remaining question is whether qualifying
period for pension should be calculated from the
date of their joining in the Society or from the
date of absorption into the MPSEB. The
entitlement for pension is governed by the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 17 of 20
and the relevant provision is Rule 3(p), which
reads as follows:
“3(p) ‘Qualifying service’ means the period
between the date of joining pensionable
service under the State Government and
retirement therefrom which shall be taken
into account for purpose of the pension and
gratuity admissible under these rules and
includes the period which qualifies under
any other order or rule for the time being in
force."
Further, Rule 12(2) provides that qualifying
service begins from the date the employee
assumes charge of the post to which they are first
appointed, whether on a substantive, officiating,
or temporary basis, in the services of the State
Government. Rule 12(2) of the Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Pension) Rules are reproduced
hereunder:
“ 12. Commencement of qualifying service.
Subject to the provisions of these rules,
(2)
qualifying service of a Government servant
shall commence fr6m the date he takes
charge of the post to which he is first
appointed either substantively or in an
officiating or temporary capacity.”
Rule 13(1) lays down that the service of a
government servant shall not qualify unless his
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 18 of 20
duties and pay are regulated by the Government.
Rule 13(1) is reproduced hereunder:
“ 13. Conditions subject to which service
qualifies.
(1) The service of a Government servant shall
not qualify unless his duties and pay are
regulated by the Government, or under
conditions determined by the Government.”
25. In view of the above, while the appellants are held
entitled to pension from the MPSEB, the period
of service rendered in the Society prior to
absorption cannot be counted. This is for the
reason that such service was not under the State
Government, and was not governed by its rules.
The appellants would thus be eligible for pension
from the date of their absorption into MPSEB,
from which point they became employees
governed by State rules.
26. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed to the extent
that the appellants shall be paid pension by the
MPSEB, with effect from their respective dates of
absorption. Impugned orders stand modified as
above. The respondents to implement the above
directions within a period of four months from
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 19 of 20
today and pay all the arrears of pension within
the same time.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………..J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 13, 2025
CA@ SLP(CIVIL) NO.23286 OF 2019 etc. etc. Page 20 of 20