M.P. POORVA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITARAN CO. LTD. & ORS. V UMA SHANKAR DWIVEDI, CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9146-9148/2018 (ARISING FROM SLP(C) No(s).5285-5287/2016) Decided on 05/09/2018.
BENCH: A two-judge bench of the Apex Court decided this case, headed by:-
- JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
- JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
FACTS: Respondent belonged to Rewa Society, where the recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission had not been implemented and Appellant No.1 extended the benefit to the employees coming from those societies, where the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission had been implemented. There was a dispute that the employees who had been absorbed shall be governed by the terms of absorption. It was claimed by the appellants that a notification was issued mentioning the pay revision of the appellant No.1 which would not be applicable to employees of Rural Electrification Cooperative Societies absorbed in the service of him.
QUESTION INVOLVED:
- Whether the appellants were bound to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission in respect of the respondent/employees.
- Whether the recommendations of the sixth and seventh pay commission.
OBSERVATIONS: It was observed by the Supreme Court that:
- The appellant No.1 had extended the benefit of the pay revision Regulations, despite the exclusion in the Notification, to those employees where the pre-revised pay scales had not been applied, the respondent/employees belonging to the Rewa Society would not be discriminated.
- No dispute should be there in regard to the implementation of recommendations of Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions. The benefits would be extended to the employees of the REC Societies with effect from the date the benefits of the Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions had been given to the employees of Appellant No.1.
CONCLUSION: The appeals, along with other pending applications, were disposed of. Arrears were to be paid within three months from the date of the judgement. There were no orders to costs.
For full judgement refer: https://www.supremecourt.gov.in/supremecourt/2016/5044/5044_2016_Judgement_05-Sep-2018.pdf
