Dismissed

C.G. State Industrial Devl. Corp. Ltd. v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC18 Feb 2024WPS/5077/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenging the absorption of 24 MPSTC employees into CSIDC was dismissed. The Court found no illegality in the State's order, relying on committee reports confirming the transfer was based on mutual agreement between successor states. The petitioner was held to lack locus standi as no specific prejudice to individual members was demonstrated.

What the court decided

AI extract

C.G. State Industrial Devl. Corp. Ltd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 5077 of 2010

¶5

Order reserved on : 20/11/2023 Order passed on : 19 / 02/2024

¶6

Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited Adhikari/Karmchari Sangh, Raipur, Office House No. 54/1085, Mishra - Niwas, Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) Through: It's President Rameshwar Puri Goswami, S/o Shri Gulaabpuri Goswami, Aged about 52 years, R/o Village Chikhli, P.O. Sundra, Raipur.

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

The Secretary, General Administration Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (CSIDC), Through: Managing Director, CSIDC, Behind L.I.C. Office Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

Chairman, Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Through: Managing Director, CSIDC. Behind L.I.C. Office Pandri Raipur (C.G.)

¶13

State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary. General Administration Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.)

¶14

Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation Limited, IIIrd Floor Gangotri Complex, T.T. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.)

¶15

Union of India, Through: the Secretary, Ministry of Public Grievance, Social Welfare and Pension, Khan Market, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi

¶16

Ravi Mathur, Manager,

¶17

S.B. Parate, Deputy Manager,

¶18

K.N.K. Mishra, Deputy Manager,

¶19

S.N. Chopda, Deputy Manager,

¶20

U.C. Dewangan, Assistant Manager,

¶21

¶22

13.Dhruv Dhar, Assistant Manager, 14.Anil Kumar Manager, Sharma, Assistant Manager, 15.S.C. Sharma, Assistant Manager, 16.S.T. Mandhanwar, Assistant Manager, 17.M.A. Ansari, Assistant Manager, 18. Rajesh Mishra, Assistant Manager, 19.P.K. Shirod, Assistant Manager, 20.K.C. Saxena, Assistant Manager, 21.Arvind Verma, Assistant Manager, 22.Smt. Maya Ramrakhyani, Assistant Manager, 23.Vivek Kayande, Assistant Manager, 24.P.S. Dhakate, Field Manager, 25. D.K. Nigam, Assistant Accounts, 26.G.C. Dewangan, Assistant Accounts 27.A.R. Baraskar, Clerk, 28.D.D. Sharma, Assistant Manager, 29.Naushad Ali, Clerk, 30.Ramnarayan Sahu, Clerk, 31.Nawab Khan, Peon, Respondents no. 8 to 31 C/o Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation, Behind L.I.C. Office Pandri, Raipur (C.G.)

¶23

---- Respondents

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate For State/respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, G.A. For Respondents No. 3 & 4 : Mr. Kashif Shakeel, Advocate For Respondent No. 6 : Ms. Sakshi Chhabra on behalf of Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.16 : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondents No. 9 & 11 : Mr. Ritesh Giri on behalf of Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate

¶25

¶26

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶27

CAV Order

¶28

Heard on admission.

¶29

Admit.

¶30

The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure P/14) and resolution dated 05.12.2007 (Annexure P/13) with regard to the absorption of 24 employees of Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation Limited in Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and prayed that respondents No. 8 to 31 may be repatriated back to the State of Madhya Pradesh or their services may be dispensed with from Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited. Further, it has been prayed by the petitioner that the seniority, pay-scale, post and other service conditions of the members of the petitioner’s society may be kept over and above to that of respondents No. 8 to 31.

¶31

Brief facts of the case as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner society is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act having its office at Danganiya, District- Raipur (C.G.). The members of the petitioner society are employees of CSIDC. Earlier CSIDC was registered as Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Raipur) Limited, Raipur. After reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh, M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Raipur) Limited, Raipur was renamed as Chhattisgarh State Development Corporation Limited. Copy of letter dated 27.04.2001 issued by Managing Director of CSIDC to use the name CSIDC is annexed as Annexure P/2. At the time of reorganization of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, the terms of reorganization were governed by a Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000 (Act of 2000). In the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, in the geographical area of State of Chhattisgarh, following government companies were functioning

¶32

¶33

immediately before the appointed day. (i) Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam, (MPLUN) (ii) Madhya Pradesh Rajya Udyog Nigam, (MPSIC) (iii) Madhya Pradesh Vitta Nigam, (MPFC) (iv) Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Raipur), (MPAKN) (v) Madhya Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (MPSIDC). All the aforementioned government companies except MPFC which was under Finance department were functioning under the Ministry of Industries in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. After formation of State of M.P., the State of Chhattisgarh decided not to continue the aforementioned government companies. As already stated above that Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Raipur) was registered as CSIDC and there is only one corporation under the department of industries in the State of Chhattisgarh. All other five aforementioned government companies were merged into CSIDC and all the employees of the government corporation under Ministry of Industries were absorbed in CSIDC. The copy of State report is annexed as Annexure P/3. The service conditions of the employees of CSIDC were governed by the M.P./C.G. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Maryadit Karmchari Sewa Niyam 1994-95. The Copy of Rules of 1994-95 is filed as Annexure P/4. As no new rule governing the service conditions of the employees of CSIDC is framed by the State of Chattisgarh, therefore the former rules of 1994-95 were applicable for appointments, promotions and other service conditions of employees of CSIDC. In the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, there was another government corporation namely Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation Limited (for short ‘MPSTC’). Prior to formation of State of Madhya Pradesh, a decision for winding-up of MPSTC was taken by the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh and cut-off date was fixed as 30.10.2000. Accordingly, in order to protect the interests of the employees working in the MPSTC a voluntary retirement scheme, 1998 was floated for entire employees of the said corporation by the State Government for entire employees of MPSTC and their

¶34

¶35

consent for VRS was sought. It was directed that in absence of consent, the employees may be retrenched as per provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The copy of letters and scheme drafted for implementation of winding of MPSTC and VRS scheme is filed as Annexure P-/4A.

¶36

Most of the employees working in MPSTC opted VRS 1998 scheme. The option was in fact mandatory in nature for the employees and in absence of which, their service was terminated. The copy of order of some of the employees of MPSTC is filed herewith as Annexure P/5. At the time of reorganization, a committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri R.P. Kapoor for deciding the division of assets and liabilities of the public enterprises existing in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh between the two successor States. The committee called upon the representatives of both the States for deciding the issue of allocation of the employees working in the corporations. The respective liabilities of the employees along with division of assets and liabilities of MPSTC were also dealt by the committee. The committee in its recommendation, and with the consent of both successor states divided the MPSTC in the ratio of 98.954:1.046 with respect to its assets and liabilities, as existed on 31.03.2001. As regards, 500 employees working in MPSTC, it was decided that out of 500 employees, 400 employees have already availed voluntary retirement as per VRS Scheme, 1998. 97 employees out of the rest ie. 100, working in the State of Chhattisgarh were granted benefits of voluntary retirement, which was paid out of the funds given by MPSTC. The amount given by MPSTC was Rs. 364.15 lacs. It was further reported to the committee that 37 employees were still working in MPSTC and out of which, the services of 24 employees were taken by the State of Chhattisgarh. Said 24 employees were given benefits of VRS Scheme and total amount of Rs. 148.87 lacs was incurred for granting the benefits of VRS to the said 24 employees. The relevant copy of report of the committee is filed as Annexure P/6. Although, in the VRS Scheme

¶37

¶38

for the employees of MPSTC, most of the employees got retired, yet some of its employees, who were in the core group i.e. in the main office, managed to retain their services in MPSTC, others were either forced to opt for VRS or their services were terminated. Some of the employees of MPSTC managed to get their services absorbed under deputation in Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation limited, Raipur by opting for the State of Chhattisgarh. The copy of order of deputation of one of the employee namely P.C. Jain is annexed as Annexure P/7. 37 employees of MPSTC including the private respondents somehow managed to retain their services either by going on deputation to other departments or by getting absorbed in the services under the State of Chhattisgarh. Except the said 376 employees, all other employees of MPSTC were either forced to opt for VRS Scheme or their services were terminated. The copies of posting orders of some of the employees are annexed as Annexure P/8. Said 37 employees of MPSTC continued in the corporation and the State of Madhya Pradesh took a decision on 04.05.2002 to absorb the core employees of MPSTC in Madhya Pradesh Hastshilp Avam Hathkargha Vikas Nigam. It was also decided to make suitable amendments in the Act to materialize the absorption of MPSTC employee. The copy of letter dated 10.05.2002 is annexed as Annexure P/9. Accordingly, the some employees of MPSTC were absorbed in Madhya Pradesh Hastshilp Avam Hathkargha Vikas Nigam Maryadit, Bhopal. The copy of appointment orders of some of the employees is filed as Annexure P/10.

¶39

Managing Director of MPSTC vide letter dated 30.09.2004 (Annexure P/11) stating therein that R.P. Kapoor Committee constituted under Section 43 of Act of 2000, allocated 24 officers/employees of MPSTC to the State of Chhattisgarh. In the report submitted by the committed presided over by Shri R.P. Kapoor, no such order or recommendation was ever given to absorb 24 employees of MPSTC in CSIDC. Even otherwise, the

¶40

¶41

services of the said 24 employees were demanded by State of Chhattisgarh for meeting-out its own exigencies and they cannot be absorbed in CSIDC at the cost of their service prospects and limited resources of CSIDC. It had been informed under Right to Information Act that the department of Commerce and Industries did not pass any order for absorption of the said 24 employees in the corporation. In CSIDC, after merger of the employees of 5 government companies there is already surplus staffs in the corporation. Therefore, under no circumstance CSIDC was ever in requirement of more staffs for deployment in its work. The set up proposed for CSIDC is yet waiting for its approval by State Government. Surprisingly, all the said 24 employees gave their joining directly in CSIDC. There is no order with respect to these employees for deploying them on deputation or otherwise. Even though the management of CSIDC permitted the said 24 employees to join in CSIDC. Normally employees of MPSTC should not have been deployed under CSIDC considering the nature of work and duties performed by them. They ought to have been deployed in State Khadi Evam Gram Udyog Board or Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation. The nature of work and the knowledge required in CSIDC and as possessed by the employees of MPSTC are altogether different. Normally such employees are sent to Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC), from where they are sent on deputation to other departments. Even the-then Managing Director of CSIDC instructed the authorities to send them to CIDC.

¶42

The policy regarding deployment of employees of various corporations under Industries department issued on 12.07.2005 is annexed as Annexure P/12. The petitioner society continually raised objection to the deployment of the respondent employees under CSIDC. After a lapse of about more than 4 years, 24 employees have been sent and deployed in CSIDC, which has affected the interests of the employees of CSIDC. CSIDC adverting to the demand and representations filed by the

¶43

¶44

employees of CSIDC submitted the case of the employees before the Board of CSIDC and the State Government. But the Managing Director of CSIDC and the Board acting against the interest of its employees, passed a resolution to absorb the 24 employees of MPSTC stating shortage of employees of CSIDC. Copy of resolution dated 05.12.2007 is annexed as Annexure P/13. The resolution passed by CSIDC was sent for approval to the Department of Commerce and Industries of the State of Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, the State Government vide order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P/14.) approved the absorption of 24 employees in CSIDC. The petitioner sought information from the respondent department about the particulars of division, decision of Kapoor Committee and proceedings regarding allotment and absorption of the MPSTC employees in CSIDC. But the department is not in possession of any document on basis of which the absorption and postings of the employees of MPSTC has been done in CSIDC. The copies of correspondences under RTI Act are filed herewith as Annexure P/14A. The petitioner's society strongly opposed the move of CSIDC as well as State Government for absorption of 24 employees under CSIDC. The copies of representations are collectively annexed as Annexure P/15. The State Government, considering the demand of the petitioner society referred to the decision for reconsideration to a specially constituted committee to be presided over by Shri Vinod Gupta, Special Secretary, Commerce and Industries. The copy of order dated 04.09.2008 is annexed as Annexure P/16. Petitioner society and the representatives of 24 employees of MPSTC submitted their case before the committee constituted by the State Government. The committee submitted its report and confirmed the order of approval of absorption of 24 employees under CSIDC. The copy of impugned report dated 04.08.2009 is filed as Annexure P/17. The petitioner society continued to submit their objections against the alleged act of absorption of the employees of MPSTC in CSIDC. Upon due consideration of their objections,

¶45

¶46

the Executive Director informed the Chairman of CSIDC that appropriate proceedings have been initiated to transfer the employees of MPSTC to another corporation. The copy of letter dated 03.10.2009 is filed as Annexure P/18. Till the end of the year 2009, the employees of CSIDC did not receive the benefits of payscale as approved under Chhattisgarh Pay Revision Rules, 2009. The employees of the corporation went on strike and adopted peaceful methods to raise their demand of granting revised pay as per 6^th pay commission report. Although, the same was granted by the State Government only after the undertaking given by the Managing Director of CSIDC that the financial burden due to grant of revised pay under 6^th pay commission recommendation will be born by the corporation and not by the State Government. The copy of letter dated 29.12 2009 is annexed as Annexure P/19 but the corporation is unable to give the arrears of 6^th pay commission recommendation due to lack of funds. Copy of representation demanding arrears of pay scale is annexed as Annexure P/19A. Despite objections raised by the petitioners against the absorption of 24 employees of MPSTC, the CSIDC proceeded to grant time bound pay scale to the respondent employee. The copy of notesheet by Executive Director, CSIDC considering the objections raised by the petitioner is filed as Annexure P/20. A committee was constituted by CSIDC for evaluating the eligibility of the employees of MPSTC for granting of time bound pay-scale. The committee vide its recommendation dated 17.05.2010 allowed time bound pay-scale to the respondent employees except one Ravi Mathur. A further note was recommended by the committee to enquire about the entries in the service book, pendency of Court case and information of last pay certificate of the employees of MPSTC before granting time bound pay-scale. The copy of report dated 17.05.2010 is annexed as Annexure P/21.

¶47

CSIDC without even examining the point referred by the committee specially constituted for determining the question of granting time bound pay-scale to the employees of CSIDC,

¶48

¶49

granted the time pay-scale to the respondent employees except Mr. Ravi Mathur vide order dated 24.05.2010 (Annexure P/22). As per the approved set up by the Board of directors, the total approved posts in CSIDC is 263. Numbers of posts are not increased. The copy of set up is annexed as Annexure P/23. At present, there are already surplus employees working in the corporation. After absorption of 24 employees of MPSTC, there is comparably substantial increase in the numbers of surplus employees in the corporation. As a result of which, some of the employees so absorbed were sent on deputation to other departments and even out of the state. The copy of list of employees of MPSTC sent on deputation to other departments is annexed as Annexure P/23A. A substantial burden has been saddled upon the corporation of the expenditure of 24 surplus employees which is ultimately shared with the employees of CSIDC at the peril of their interest. The pay sheet for the month of May 2010 of the 24 employees is annexed as Annexure P-24. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

¶50

10.1. That all the records pertaining to the appointment and posting orders with respect to respondent no. 8 to 31 may be called for the purpose of perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

¶51

10.2. That the order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P-14) and resolution dated 05.12.2007 (Annexure P-13) with regard to absorption of 24 employees of Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation Limited in Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited may be set-aside/quashed and further the recommendation dated 08.07.2009 by the committee presided over by Shri Vinod Gupta confirming the decision of respondent no. 1 and 3 to absorb the employees of Madhya Pradesh State Textile Corporation Limited may be quashed.

¶52

¶53

10.3. That respondent no. 8 to 31 may be repatriated back to the State of Madhya Pradesh or their services may be dispensed with from Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited.

¶54

10.4. That in alternative, the seniority, pay-scale, post and other services conditions of the members of petitioner society may be kept over and above to that of respondents no. 8 to 31.

¶55

10.5. Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶56

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision taken by the State and Board of CSIDC for absorbing the employees of MPSTC is illegal and contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. The absorption of employees of M.P.S.T.C. by the State of Chhattisgarh, Commerce and Industries Department is not valid because the employees of M.P.S.T.C. are neither absorbed by the General Administration Department nor by the Department of Commerce and Industries, therefore they cannot be directly be employed by CSIDC. No option whatsoever was sought from the employees of M.P.S.T.C. as the Corporation itself stood dissolved prior to reorganization of the State. Merely to accommodate 24 employees of M.P.S.T.C. policy of allocation and absorption of services cannot be changed. The absorption of the employees of M.P.S.T.C. after 4½ years of reorganization of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh by the State of Chhattisgarh on account of requirement of more employees is absurd and irrational. All employees other than MPSTC came to State of Chhattisgarh under the provisions of M.P. Reorganization Act, 2000 with their posts under division scheme. Only MPSTC officials came, as stated as per demand by Chhattisgarh Government, in

¶57

¶58

contravention to the provisions of Act of 2000. CSIDC is already having surplus staff and induction of more employees of MPSTC is only another step to increase the number of surplus employees in CSIDC. The service conditions of the employees working in the corporations in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh were decided in accordance with the provisions of Act of 2000 and agreement entered into between the two successor States. The erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh decided to close MPSTC and offered voluntary retirement to its employees. The core staff of employees in head office managed to retain their services on the ground of administrative feasibility succeeded to continue their services upto 2004. After 2004, no question arises of allocation to either of the States, even then the services of the 24 employees were imported on deputation by State of Chhattisgarh. However, no approval has been sought from the Central Government regarding absorption of the said 24 employees and if once the said corporation has winded off then as to how the employees of the same corporation can be transferred to C.G. Government. As per Section 60 of the Act of 2000, the Companies specified in 7^th Schedule to the Act shall continue to function in the areas in which it was functioning immediately before appointed day until otherwise provided for in any law or in any agreement among the successor State or in any direction issued by Central Government. The Central Government may issue such direction in relation to functioning of such companies after consultation with the Governments of successor States. In the present State of Chhattisgarh, the employees of M.P.S.T.C. were working on the appointed day, meaning thereby the company was functioning in the State of Chhattisgarh, but without there being any agreement between the States or directions issued by Central Government the company has been dissolved in contrary to the provisions of Section 60 of the Act of 2000.

¶59

10.The impugned absorption order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P/14) nowhere specified the terms of absorption of the employees

¶60

¶61

of M.P.S.T.C. vis-a-vis employees of C.S.I.D.C. Despite of opposition by the employees of C.S.I.D.C., the benefit of 6^th payscale has been granted to the private respondents. The seniority, pay-scale, post, designation and other service conditions of the employees of M.P.S.T.C. in C.S.I.D.C. were not mentioned in the absorption order, therefore, the members of the petitioner's society are kept in dark about the affect that has taken place due to absorption of the employees of M.P.S.T.C. The requirement of 24 employees of M.P.S.T.C. was proposed by the State of Chhattisgarh and therefore, these 24 employees can be absorbed by the State of Chhattisgarh and not by C.S.I.D.C. The lien over the posts earlier held by the employees of M.P.S.T.C. came to an end after being relieved on 30.09.2004. Copy of letter dated 24.02.2009 by Managing Director of M.P.S.T.C. is annexed as Annexure P/25. Thus, the private respondents can only at the best be remain as deputationist in C.S.I.D.C. and not regular employee of C.S.I.D.C., but, on contrary some of these employees are being sent on deputation to State of Madhya Pradesh as employees of C.S.I.D.C.

¶62

He further submits that the private respondents were the core staff of M.P.S.T.C., which was dissolved on 31.10.2000. On the ground of administrative and financial function, these 37 employees managed to retain their services even after dissolution of the company, whereas other employees were directed to opt for voluntary retirement Scheme 1998 or to loose the service. The extraordinary favour shown towards 37 employees of M.P.S.T.C. is discriminatory and illegal. The other employees of M.P.S.T.C., who were forcibly retired, filed writ petitions before this Court, which are pending for adjudication. The private respondents were employed in M.P.S.T.C. for extended period of about 4½ years only for the purpose of meeting out administration, legal and financial exigencies of a closed concern. After fulfillment of the aforesaid purpose, they are to be treated as normal employees and voluntary retirement ought to have been granted to them as

¶63

¶64

offered to other employees. There can be no renewal of contract of service that too with a changed employer. There is complete violation of the provisions of M.P. Reorganisation Act 2000 and fundamental rules. The R.P. Kapoor's committee report showed that it was nowhere recommended by the committee to allocate the services of 24 employees of M.P.S.T.C. to the State of Chhattisgarh. The said 24 employees were granted benefit of voluntary retirement scheme and according to which, Rs. 148.87 lacs was paid to the said 24 employees as voluntary retirement compensation. The State of Chhattisgarh gave its consent to pay Rs. 148.87 lacs, which was the voluntary retirement compensation amount to the present State of Madhya Pradesh. Therefore, it is clear that the said 24 employees on one hand received the voluntary retirement compensation and the same amount has been paid by the State of Chhattisgarh to the State of Madhya Pradesh and again they have been absorbed as employees of C.S.I.D.C from M.P.S.T.C. It is also clear from the figures mentioned in the report that on 30.09.2004, Rs. 11.51 lacs was already given to the 24 employees, which has been recovered by the State of Chhattisgarh. A policy decision was already been taken by M.P.S.T.C. to retire the 24 employees and again State of Chhattisgarh cannot re-employee them. In C.S.I.D.C. also, the setup of the employees is yet to be approved by the State Government. Even as per tentative setup of C.S.I.D.C., there are surplus employees and there is no requirement of inducting more employees in the corporation. Due to increase of the number of employees in C.S.I.D.C., the corporation is unable to grant arrears of benefits of 6^th pay commission to its own employees till date. The State Government had made it clear that it will not share any burden of 6^th pay commission while revising the pay scale of the employees. The C.S.I.D.C. being autonomous body and working with limited resources cannot be burdened by absurd and arbitrary decision taken by State Government at the cost of interests of the present employees of C.S.I.D.C. The 5 statutory corporations

¶65

¶66

were assimilated and merged to form C.S.I.D.C. and all the employees of the 5 corporations constituted the employees of C.S.I.D.C.

¶67

12.The employees of M.P.S.T.C. are not well versed in dealing with finance, commerce and industries, which is the exclusive nature of work performed by C.S.I.D.C. Thus, the absorption order is bad in eyes of law. The earlier Managing Director Mr. Shailesh Pathak recommended to sent the 24 employees of M.P.S.T.C. to Khadi and Gramodyog Board, which has not been followed till today and a contrary decision has been taken. The employees of M.P.S.T.C. were only entitled for the pay-scale drawn as per the last pay certificatef but the corporation has granted them all the allowances and benefits available to a regular employee, which goes contrary to the rule of absorption of a fresh employee. As per the Service rules of 1994-95 applicable to the CSIDC, the modes of recruitment is provided in Rule 6. As per Rule 6(1)(A)(c), the recruitment by absorption can only be of the project employees transferred to the service of CSIDC. No other way is prescribed for absorption of other employees. Therefore, the absorption of 24 employees in the services of CSIDC is against the provisions of the service rules. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P/14), resolution dated 05.12.2007 (Annexure P/13) and recommendation dated 08.07.2009 are liable to be set aside & respondents No. 8 to 31 may be repatriated back to the State of Madhya Pradesh or their services may be dispensed with from Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation Limited.

¶68

Reliance has been placed on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) represented by its Assistant General Secretary on behalf of the Asson. etc., v. Union of India and others; AIR 1981 SC 298, Steel Authority of India Limited v. Sutni Sangam and others; (2009) 16 SCC 1 and Royal Orchid Hotels Limited and another v. G. Jayarama Reddy and others; (2011) 10 SCC 608 & this Court’s order dated 17.10.2016 passed in Writ Appeal

¶69

¶70

No. 108 of 2016 { Sanjay Pathak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others }.

¶71

Learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 and 2 strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the decision of the State allowing 24 employees to join the CSIDC was a decision taken and based upon the resolution dated 05.12.2007 (Annexure P/13) of the CSIDC and also upon the recommendation of R.P. Kapoor Committee. The petitioner society has no locus to file and challenge the joining of 24 employees in CSIDC. In the entire petition, it is nowhere stated that as to what prejudice, loss etc. would be caused to the society if the said 24 employees who joined the CSIDC are allowed to continue. The matter with regard to bifurcation of assets, liabilities and employees was considered by the Kapoor Committee under Section 43 of the M.P. Reorganization Act and the same was discussed for several times in the presence of representative of the Central Government as well as both the successor State Governments. Thereafter, it was recommended that 37 employees of both the States, out of which 24 employees who have been given their option for the Chhattisgarh should be jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner did not challenge the policy decision, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

¶72

15.Learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4 opposes the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is a delay of 6 years in filing the present petition from the date of joining of Respondents No. 8 to 31, hence the same is not maintainable on the ground of delay. As far as relief clause no. 10.4 is concerned, the instant petition neither discloses the details of the members of the petitioner society nor the fact that as to how they are entitled for preferential right in terms of seniority, pay-scale, post & other service conditions over Respondents No. 8 to 31. Respondent No. 3 (CSIDC) is a Government of Chhattisgarh undertaking and is registered under the Companies Act. The Respondent No. 3 has its own

¶73

¶74

Memorandum & Article of association. Before, 2000 i.e. the reorganization of State of Madhya Pradesh, the MPAKVN Raipur which was subsidiary of MPSIDC Bhopal was in existence. The same was under the administrative control of Commerce & Industries Department of the State. After reorganization on 17.04.2001, the name of MPAKVN Raipur was changed to Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation. Meanwhile, the State of Chhattisgarh decided that under the control of Department of Commerce & Industry, Gramodhyog & Public enterprises, there would be only two institutions viz. CSIDC & Khadi Gramodhyog Board. It was also decided that other Corporations under the administrative control of Commerce & Industries Department which were to be discontinued in the State of Chhattisgarh would be merged in CSIDC. Thereafter, 5 other Corporations were merged with CSIDC. The copy of the order dated 01.06.2001 is annexed as Annexure R/3-1. The bifurcation of Respondent No. 6 Corporation took place which was winded up on 01.10.2000 while keeping few of their employees as Core Staff.

¶75

16.The matter was placed before the "Kapoor's Committee" under the provisions of Section 43 of the M.P. Reorganization Act for bifurcation of assets, liabilities & employees and the same was discussed for several times in presence of representatives of Central Government as well as both successor Governments. Finally in agreement between both states i.e. M.P. as well as C.G. it was recommended that out of 37 remaining employees of the core staff 24 employees who have given their option for C.G. would be transferred to State of Chhattisgarh. The copy of the report of the "Kapoor's Committee" with regard to the MPSTC bifurcation is annexed as Annexure R/3-2. The said recommendation was sent to the Central Government for approval but as the same was made in mutual agreement between the successor states i.e. MP & CG therefore, the Central Government declined to issue any formal order and directed to take further action in the matter. The copy of the letter dated 22.06.2005 is

¶76

¶77

annexed as Annexure R/3-3 . Meanwhile on 30.09.2004, in pursuance of the meeting dated 21.06.2004 of meeting of "Kapoor's Committee" & the decision dated 28.09.2004 of their board meeting of Respondent No. 6, the Respondent No. 6 relieved their 24 employees by transferring their services to the State of CG who have given an option to be allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. These 24 employees directly gave their joining to the Respondent CSIDC on 01.10.2004.

¶78

17.On 03.10.2004, the-then Managing Director of CSIDC had directed to the CSIDC establishment/administration to give joining those employees who were necessary and the remaining were directed to be sent to the Gramodyog Vibhag. A proposal was placed to send 10 employees to Gramodyog Vibhag and remaining to be kept in CSIDC was proposed however no decision to send any employee to other department could be taken and all the 24 employees were allocated work in CSIDC. Thereafter, few of the officers/employees of CSIDC had made representation against the joining of these 24 employees citing reasons to be prejudicial to their service benefits and other reasons. In pursuance of the resolution of the Board of CSIDC dated 05.12.2007, the matter of absorption of the 24 employees of MPSTC was sent to the State Government. On 22.02.2008 the State Government approved the absorption of Respondent No. 8 to 31 in CSIDC from their date of joining. On 24.02.2009, their lien was also terminated by the earlier employer i.e. MPSTC. Hence, in view of the recommendation of Kapoor's Committee and the decision of approval of the State Government of Chhattisgarh with regard to the absorption of Respondents No. 8 to 31, the issue attained finality. This matter was thereafter agitated by the petitioner society as well as individually by the employees on various grounds including malafide and illegality before the State Government as well as CSIDC. Therefore, it was decided by the State Government to be enquired into the allegations made by various complainants by forming a committee headed by the

¶79

¶80

Special Secretary of the State Government. In the enquiry, both the sides were given opportunity to prove their case and the records were perused. After going through the same, the committee came to the conclusion that the absorption of the 24 employees is legal and no irregularity has been committed in their joining. The copy of the report of the Committee enquiring into the allegations against the absorption of respondents No. 8 to 31 is annexed as Annexure R/3-4.

¶81

18.Subsequently, the opinion was sought by the State Government on this report which was replied by the CSIDC. As these 24 employees were having expertise in work related to Handloom therefore it was opined to send a proposal for their absorption from the State Government level to various Corporation/institutions engaged in handloom activities. The copy of the letter dated 13.10.2009 of CSIDC is annexed as Annexure R/3-5. However, the State Government turned down the proposal sent by the CSIDC and refused to change the earlier order of absorption and directed the answering respondent to act in accordance with the absorption order dated 22.02.2008. The copy of the order dated 06.04.2010 of respondent No.1 is annexed as Annexure R/3-6. Thereafter, a request was also made by Respondent No. 4 to the Hon'ble Chief Minister to transfer the services of the employees (who have come from the MPSTC to CSIDC) to the department of Handloom/Gramodhyog & absorb them in that department. This letter was forwarded to the State Government (Department of Gramodhyog) by the Secretariat office of Hon'ble Chief Minister for action and information. The copy of the letter dated 05.09.2011 of Respondent No. 4 & copy of the letter dated 24.09.2011 of the Under Secretary of office of Hon'ble Chief Minister are collectively annexed as Annexure R/37. On 16.12.2011 (Annexure R/3-8), respondent No. 3 has sent a reminder to the State Government requesting for information if any action has been taken in pursuance of the above letter dated 05.09.2011, but no action was taken. Therefore, the instant

¶82

¶83

petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶84

Learned counsel for respondent No.6 opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that respondent No. 6 is a company owned and control by the erstwhile State of M.P., and after reorganization of the State of M.P., the respondent No.6 is existing in the State of M.P, and division of assets of liabilities between the State of M.P., and the State of Chhattisarh has also been taken place as per the provisions of the Act, 2000. The services of respondents 8 to 31 are allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh by virtue of division and assets of liabilities of the erstwhile Textiles Corporation and the erstwhile State of M.P., therefore, service of employees who have been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh cannot be repatriated to M.P. Textiles Corporation. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶85

20.Learned counsel for respondent No. 16 also opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner did not file its bye-laws, list of members and the resolution which authorize the president to file the present petition. The petitioner Sangh does not disclose the details of their members name, designation, posts, seniority, promotion or any details of nature of employment thereby asserting that as to how right has accrued in their favour for filing this petition. The present petition has been filed by a delay of 6 years from the date of joining of private respondents and no cogent reason has been assigned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the present petition. Therefore, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶86

Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Prabhat Vs. Barkatulla University; 2011 ILR M.P. 1692.

¶87

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

¶88

23.It is not disputed in this case, that the private respondents No. 8 to 31 are employees of MPSTC and after bifurcation of State of

¶89

¶90

Chhattisgarh, they were being transferred to State of Chhattisgarh and they joined in CSIDC and by order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P/14), their services were absorbed in CSIDC. It is clear from the documents available on record that on 01.06.2001 (Annexure R/3-1), the State of Chhattisgarh decided that there would be only two institutions i.e. CSIDC and Khadi Gramodhyog Board and it was also decided that other corporations under the administrative control of Commerce & Industries department which were to be discontinued in the State of Chhattisgarh would be merged in CSIDC.

¶91

24.Respondents filed recommendations of R.P. Kapoor Committee and Gupta Committee. Annexure R/3-4 dated 16.07.2009 reads as under:-

¶92

इ- उपरोक्त 24 अधि�कारिरयों/कर्म�चारिरयोंकेसी०एस०आई०डी०सी०र्मेंसंवि�लि�यनकेसंबं� र्मेंसी.एस.आई.डी.सी. केसंचा�कर्मण्ड�की 99 �ींबैठकवि'नांक 05/12/2007 र्में, संचा�कर्मण्ड�द्वाराविनम्नसंकल्पपारिरतविकयागया -

¶93

"संकल्प पारिरत विकया जाता है विक पू� � त0 एपीएसटीसी के वि�भाजन र्में छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य को स्थानांतरिरत 24 अधि�कारी/कर्म�चारिरयों को विनगर्म र्में सर्माविहत विकये जाने के संबं� र्में छ०ग० शासन, �ाणि;ज्य ए�ं उद्योग वि�भाग को प्रस्ता� भेजा जाए ।

¶94

सी०एस०आई०डी०सी० के संचा�क र्मण्ड� के द्वारा पारिरत उपरोक्त संकल्प के पा�न र्में पू� � त0 र्म०प्र० स्टेट टेक्सटाइल्स काप@ लि�विर्म. के वि�भाजन के फ�स्�रूप छ०ग० राज्य को स्थानांतरिरत 24 अधि�कारिरयों/कर्म�चारिरयों को विनगर्म र्में सर्माविहत करने का प्रस्ता� राज्य शासन को सी.एस.आई.डी. सी के पत्र वि'नांक 02/01/2008 द्वारा प्रेविDत विकया गया है । पत्र की प्रधित सं�ग्न है

¶95

उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट होता है विक पू� � त0 र्म०प्र० राज्य �स्त्र विनगर्म के 24 अधि�कारी / कर्म�चारिरयों का संवि�लि�यन सी०एस०आई०डी०सी० र्में र्मान्य करने का राज्य शासन का आ'ेश पू;�तः वि�धि� सम्र्मत है ए�ं इस संबं� र्में र्मध्यप्र'ेश ए�ं छत्तीसगढ शासन के अधि�कृत प्रधितविनधि� द्वारा सहर्मधित पर आ�ारिरत है ए�ं इस आ'ेश र्में विकसी प्रकार की परिर�त�न की आ�श्यकता नहीं है।

¶96

Thus, it is also clear from above mentioned report that before this Committee, officers and employees of CSIDC were also present and they objected to absorption of the private respondents. The Gupta Committee considered all aspects of the case and

¶97

¶98

recommended that absorption of the said employees is valid and there was no illegality in the said absorption.

¶99

26.Petitioner filed this petition on behalf of the officers and the employees of CSIDC, Raipur. All the respondents objected that the petitioner did not disclose the fact that as to how they are entitled for preferential right in terms of seniority, pay-scale, post and other service conditions over respondents No. 8 to 31.

¶100

In the matter of Swakshtagrahi Sangh, Janpad Panchayat Niwas Vs. Union of Inida and others passed in Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 decided on 15.03.2022 , Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held in paras 7 & 8 as under:-

¶101

7. The Division Bench of this court in the matter of Prabhat Vs. Barkatulla University¹ , has held that a writ petition for enforcement of the rights of its members, as distinguished from the rights of the Association as a body, can be filed by the Association acting through its office bearers or members, whether the Association is registered or unregistered, incorporated or not, only when the Association can satisfy the Court that if an adverse decision is given in that petition, all the members of that Association or "Body of Individuals" will be bound by the decision. It has also been held that if the same principle is not followed, immediately after adverse decision, any other members of the said Association may come before the Court in an independent writ petition saying that he has not been heard and he had not authorized such Association or office bearer or member to represent him in the litigation.

¶102

8. Therefore, to bind the members by the decision in a litigation brought before the Court on behalf of such members by any Association, it is necessary that such Association must clearly resolve that who authorized the Association to file such litigation. The resolution should also mention that the members will abide any decision rendered in such litigation. In the present case, a perusal of the resolution clearly shows that the same does not fulfill the stipulated requirement.

¶103

¶104

Hence, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error while rejecting the writ petition.

¶105

In this case also, the petitioner did not disclose that which member of the petitioner-committee was prejudiced by absorption of respondents No. 8 to 31. State Government, after considering all aspects of the matter, passed the order of absorption and objection of the petitioner-committee was also considered by the Gupta Committee. The resolution with regard to absorption of 24 employees of MPSTC has been passed on 05.12.2007 (Annexure P/13) and vide order dated 22.02.2008 (Annexure P/14), the State Government approved the absorption of 24 employees in CSIDC and this petition was filed by the petitioner-committee after 2 years of the said resolution, as such this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.02.2018 (Annexure P/14) and resolution dated 05.12.2007 (Annexure P/13). Furthermore, in this writ petition, petitioner-committee even did not challenge the resolution of the State Government.

¶106

In view of above discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions referred hereinabove, this petition being without any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶107

Sd/-

¶108

(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶109

Ruchi

C.G. State Industrial Devl. Corp. Ltd. v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

C.G. State Industrial Devl. Corp. Ltd. v. State of C.G. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandadevi Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Kuleshwar Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Cg.Rajya Sahakari Vipran Sangh and Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Smt.goreti Minj Vs Lalsai

Jogeshwar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Malti Agrawal Vs State Bank Of India