MP High Court Clarifies Distinction Between Original And Absorbed Janpad Panchayat Employees For Pension Eligibility

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait (Chief Justice) and Vivek Jain dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge's order. The court ruled that a Janpad Panchayat employee who failed to establish his absorption from the previous Janpad Sabha is not entitled to pension benefits. The court held that only employees of Janpad Sabha absorbed into Janpad Panchayat after the 1962 MP Panchayats Act would have pension rights, while original Janpad Panchayat employees were entitled only to Contributory Provident Fund. Background Ganesh Ram Kahar claimed he was appointed as a Peon in Janpad Sabha, Sohagpur, District Hoshangabad. He contended that along with other staff, he was taken over by Janpad Panchayat, Pipariya, District Hoshangabad in 1972, and subsequently retired from service in September 2008. When pension was not paid, he filed W.P. No. 4579/2009, which was disposed of with directions to decide his representation. Though pension payments began thereafter, they were abruptly stopped in September 2015, leading him to file another writ petition. However, a Single Judge dismissed the petition. Aggrieved, Ganesh Kahar filed an appeal against the Single Judge's order. He claimed that stoppage of pension after eight years of payment amounted to a penalty. He argued that such stoppage could only be made as per Rules 8 and 9 of MP Civil Services Pension Rules, which required the governor's sanction preceded by a departmental inquiry or on occurrence of specific contingencies. Arguments Ganesh Kahar argued that the service book contained entries proving he was taken over from erstwhile Janpad Sabha and absorbed in Janpad Panchayat. He submitted that he was entitled to pension, and that he was suffering from various illnesses and was in dire need of money. Citing Rules 8 and 9 of MP Civil Services Pension Rules, he argued that a sanction from the Governor or competent authority is required before stopping his pension. Representing the State, the Deputy Advocate General argued that the service book placed on record had little evidentiary value, as already determined by the learned Single Judge. He argued that pension was erroneously paid to Ganesh Kahar under a mistaken interpretation of the single judge's order. He explained that the order merely directed the consideration of Ganesh Kahar's representation, not mandatory pension payment. He maintained that since the stoppage was not by way of penalty, it did not fall under Rules 8 and 9 of MP Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. Court's Findings Firstly, the court established that the central issue was whether Ganesh Kahar was a taken-over employee of erstwhile Janpad Sabha or not. It examined Section 147 of the MP Panchayats Act, 1962, which allowed Janpad Panchayats to maintain Provident Funds without state sanction, but required state government approval to grant pensions to officers. The court noted that undisputedly, Janpad Panchayat employees were covered under Contributory Provident Fund since no pension scheme was ever sanctioned by the State Government. The court then analyzed Section 386 of the MP Panchayats Act, 1962, which contained savings provisions for existing permanent employees. It clarified that employees of Janpad Sabhas run by the State Government were entitled to pension benefits. Further, if these employees were absorbed in Panchayats after 1962, they would continue to receive pension like any other State Government employee. However, the court noted that this applied only if Ganesh Kahar could prove he was absorbed from the erstwhile Janpad Sabha. Secondly, examining Ganesh Kahar's service book, the court found several discrepancies. The court noted suspicious entries in the service book; for example: a seal of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Sohagpur beneath a purported 1972 entry but with signatures from 1990. Further, the court examined a 1972 Collector's order, which listed employees taken over from various Janpad Sabhas. It noted that Ganesh Kahar's name was not mentioned in this order. Given these inconsistencies, the court agreed with the Single Judge'sorder that the entries could not be relied upon. Finally, regarding Rules 8 and 9 of the MP Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976, the court clarified that these rules only related to stopping pension for specific contingencies like criminal conviction or departmental inquiries. It noted that the stoppage in this case was only due to erroneous grant of pension and not for any other reason. Thus, it held, that Rules 8 and 9 would not apply to this case. However, considering Ganesh Kahar's old age, the court ordered that pension already paid would not be recovered. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Single Judge's order. Decided on: 28.02.2025 Case No.: W.A. No. 752 of 2020 | Ganesh Ram Kahar v. The State Of Madhya...

MP High Court Clarifies Distinction Between Original And Absorbed Janpad Panchayat Employees For Pension Eligibility

Pranav Kumar

Tags