LexVIJAY KUMAR JOSHI versus AKASH TRIPATHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 402 : 2025 INSC 670 Vijay Kumar Joshi v. Akash Tripathi & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6652 of 2025) 13 May 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose with regards to admissibility of pension to the employees of the Co-operative Societies who were absorbed with the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB); 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. Headnotes† Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules – rr.3(p), 12(2), 13(1) – Admissibility of pension to the employees of the Societies absorbed with the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB) – 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: Held: Appellants are entitled to pension from the MPSEB, however, the period of service rendered in the Society prior to absorption cannot be counted because such service was not under the State Government and was not governed by its rules – Thus, the appellants are eligible for pension from the date of their absorption into MPSEB, from which point they became employees governed by State rules – Impugned orders modified – Constitution of India – Art.142. [Paras 25, 26] Service Law – Absorption – Pension – Entitlement to: Held: Upon merger or absorption, the original identity of the service ceases to exist and complete functional integration must follow – Full functional integration carries with it the rights and benefits attached to the new service – It would be unjust to deny pension benefits * Author [2025] 6 S.C.R. 403 Vijay Kumar Joshi v. Akash Tripathi & Ors. to the absorbed employees when they are performing the same duties and discharging the same responsibilities as other MPSEB employees – Further in the case of Bijli Karamchari Sangh, the employees’ Union, relief was already granted partially – Thus, there cannot be two classes of employees in the same organisation – All the absorbed employees are entitled to pension in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. [Paras 20, 22, 23] Case Law Cited Panchraj Tiwari v. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and Others [2014] 3 SCR 577 : (2014) 5 SCC 101; M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd v. Uma Shankar Dwivedi, Civil Appeal No. 9146-9148 of 2018; Brajendra Singh Kushwah & Ors. v. M.P. State Electricity Board and Ors., SLP (Civil) No.28516 of 2013 – referred to. List of Acts Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules; Constitution of India. List of Keywords Absorption; Merger; Pension; Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB); Co-operative Societies; Terms of absorption; Pension payable; Rules of concerned society; Regular employees of MPSEB; Qualifying period for calculation of pension; Service rendered in the Society; Service rendered after absorption in the MPSEB; Date of joining in the Society; Date of absorption into the MPSEB; Two classes of employees in same organization; Unjust discrimination; Qualifying period for pension. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6652 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2019 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in CONC No. 2376 of 2018 With Civil Appeal Nos. 6653-6674, 6675-6710, 6711-6741, 6742-6765, 6766-6775, 6776-6781, 6782-6783, 6784-6785, 6786, 6787-6788 and 6789 of 2025 404 [2025] 6 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: N.K. Mody, S K Gangele, Sr. Advs. Ms. Ishita M. Puranik, Suresh Kumar Bhan, Ms. Jigisha Agarwal, Diwakar Shukla, Prabuddha Singh Gour, Karan Gupta, Nityanand Mahato, Praveen Swarup, Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Alice Raj, Ms. Priya Sharma, Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Mrs. Barnali Basak, Ms. Monica Goel, Ms. Saket Gautam, Satish Kumar, Arup Banerjee, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Ajeet Kumar Singh, Ms. Priya Mishra, Devvrat, Aditya Kumar Dubey. Advs. for the Respondents: V.V.V. Pattabhiram, D.A.G., G. Umapathy, Sr. Adv., Rohit K. Singh, Pritam Bishwas, Amalpushp Shroti, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Aditya Vaibhav Singh - G.A, Ms. Chhavi Khandelwal, Siddharth, Harshit Manwani. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Le
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.