RACHANA ZAMINDAR, ADVOCATE) v. GENERAL)

3. O.P. JAIN S/O HUKUMCHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 55 RETIRED YEARS, OCCUPATION: PASHUPATINATH COLONY NEAR NEW AGRAWAL DHARAMSHALA AGAR MALWA (MADHYA PRADESH) HEMCHANDRA SINGH CHOUHAN S/O RANJIT SINGH CHOUHAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED 115 ARYA SAMAJ MARG BAHADURGANJ UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) PRINCIPAL TRANSPORT SECRETARY D EPARTM EN T VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI PRAMOD C. NAIR, ADVOCATE). (RESPONDENT NO.3 BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL) .....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the following: ORDER

The petitioner / respondent in the writ petition has filed the present review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w section 114 of the Code of Civil 2 Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 27.03.2023 passed in W.P. No.25598 of 2019 & other connected writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions were allowed directing the review petitioner to give arrears of gratuity, ex gratia and leave encashment within a period of 90 days along with the interest @ 6% per annum.

The review petitioner filed a writ appeal i.e. W.A. No.954 of 2023 but withdrew on 25.07.2023 with liberty to file review petition. According to the review petitioner, the employees of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) claimed recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission and Dearness Allowance (DA) at par with the employees of State Government. The Industrial Tribunal held that they are not entitled for recommendation of Fifth Pay Commission but entitled for payment of DA at par with the employees of State Government. The aforesaid order was maintained by this Court in W.P. No.1247 of 2007 and by Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.321 of 2013.

The MPSRTC came up with a Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 2000 because of the financial crisis and large number of employees of MPSRTC availed the aforesaid benefit. The Union approached the Industrial Court under Section 10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 complaining certain non-payment of benefits under the Scheme. The matter travelled up to this Court by way of W.P. No.8822 of 2013 and other connected writ petitions. Vide order dated 09.03.2017, all the writ petitions were disposed of with direction to grant dearness relief applicable at the time of VRS at par with the employees of State Government (pay-scale of Fourth Pay Commission). The MPSRTC was directed to recalculate the VRS amount by taking into account the pay-scale & DA of Fourth Central Pay Commission. It has also been held that for granting the gratuity, the MPSRTC did not take into consideration the pay-scale of Fourth Pay Commission, therefore, the exercise of calculating the 3 gratuity amount is also liable to redone.

These respondents / writ petitioners approached this Court by way of W.P. No.35598 of 2019 claiming benefits of DA after pay fixation under the recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission and gratuity, ex gratia and leave encashment. According to them, although the benefit of DA has been granted, but consequential benefits like gratuity, ex gratia and leave encashment have not been granted.

The MPSRTC filed a reply by submitting that they cannot claim parity with those petitioners who were parties in W.P. No.8822 of 2013 and Civil Appeal No.321 of 2013.

Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner submits that the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.321 of 2013 and order passed by this Court in W.P. No.8822 of 2013 was confined to those ex-employees who approached the Labour Court and award was passed in their favour. These petitioners directly approached this Court, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefits granted by the Apex Court as well as this Court.

Such type of objections had already been taken in the reply and the same was rejected by this Court. If Apex Court or High Court granted certain benefits to similarly placed employees, certainly the other employees, who earlier did not approach this Court can claim the said benefit as they are legally entitled for the same. Merely the writ petitioners did not approach the Labour Court and directly filed a writ petition, their claim cannot be rejected on such grounds. So far as DA is concerned, in compliance of the order of the Apex 4 Court, same has been paid, but the Apex Court has not denied the other consequential benefits after granting the DA. This Court in W.P. No.8822 of 2013 has held that after grant of DA and the recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission, gratuity and other benefits are liable to revised. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting review.