VIJAY KUMAR JOSHIversusAKASH TRIPATHI & ORS.

                  [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.     Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2.     The present appeals, except the two mentioned in paragraph 3
       hereafter, assail the correctness of the judgment and order dated
       22.08.2019 passed by the Full Bench of the High Court of Madhya
       Pradesh at Jabalpur in a bunch of Writ Appeals whereby it answered
       the two questions referred to it and held that the judgment of the
       Division Bench in the Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015, holding that the
       employees of the Society were entitled to pension, did not lay down
       the correct law and further that the employees were not entitled to
       the benefit of pension as claimed by them but would be governed
       by the terms of absorption which provided that pension and gratuity
       would be admissible as per the rules and regulations of the Society.
       These appeals further assail the consequential orders passed by the
       Division Bench disposing off Writ Appeals in the light of the judgment
       of the Full Bench dated 22.08.2019.
3.     The following two appeals that arise out of SLP(C) No.23286/2019
       and SLP(C) No.3805/2021 arise from separate orders passed in
       contempt proceedings whereby the contempt proceedings were
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                             405

                 Vijay Kumar Joshi v. Akash Tripathi & Ors.


      closed. In one of the contempt proceedings, it was held that the
      employees had been granted pension counting their service from the
      date of absorption in the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board,1
      whereas in the other contempt proceedings, the proceedings were
      dropped in view of the judgment of the Full Bench dated 22.08.2019
      referred to above.
4.    The only issue which is relevant for adjudication in these appeals
      is with regard to admissibility of pension to the employees of the
      Societies who were absorbed with the MPSEB and 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.
5.    In the State of Madhya Pradesh, large number of Co-operative
      Societies were registered which were involved in the work of
      distribution of electricity in different areas. At some stage the financial
      health of the Societies became poor and they were unable to manage
      and control their affairs, as such a policy decision was taken in 1995
      to merge them with the MPSEB subject to terms and conditions being
      set out in all respects. In particular, with respect to the employees
      of the Societies both regular and daily wagers.
6.    The policy decision of 1995 ultimately fructified in the year 2002
      when the Societies were dissolved and the merger took place with
      effect from 15.03.2002 notified subsequently vide order of MPSEB
      dated 18.05.2004 and 14.12.2004. Further, the terms and conditions
      for absorption were formulated and declared by the MPSEB in its
      order dated 05.06.2004, which are reproduced hereunder:
             “1. The regular employees of the above societies shall be
             taken over on the same terms and conditions as existing
             in the Society except that no deputation allowance shall
             be paid.
             2. Their pay scale will be the same which they were getting
             before the absorption.


1    MPSEB
406                                                         [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            3. The above employees may not be transferred out of
            the circle concerned, so that no anomaly arises.
            4. Their age of superannuation will be the same as
            applicable in the societies.
            5. Pension/gratuity will be payable to the employees
            absorbed in the Board as per the rules/regulations of the
            concerned society.
            6. Their designation will be maintained as it was in the
            society.”
7.     Soon after the absorption, the employees’ Union by the name Bijli
       Karamchari Sangh2 filed a Writ Petition registered as W.P.(S)No.1151
       of 2005 titled Bijli Karamchari Sangh vs. M.P.State Electricity Board
       and others. The relief claimed in these petitions was with respect
       to quashing of the order issued by the Regulatory Commission
       dated 20.02.2003 and 15.12.2004 which related to the merger and
       absorption. Further relief claimed was that the same benefit should
       be extended to the petitioner therein as that of the employees of
       the MPSEB.
8.     During the pendency of the petition filed by the BKS, another petition
       was filed by one Panchraj Tiwari registered as Writ Petition No.1962
       of 2010. The decision in the said writ petition was carried up to this
       Court in Civil Appeal No.4371 of 2008, which was decided vide
       judgment dated 04.03.2014, whereby, Clause 3 and 6 of the terms
       and conditions of absorption were found unsustainable.
9.     Subsequently vide judgment dated 07.03.2015, the writ petition of the
       BKS was decided and a direction was issued to the effect that once
       the employees of the society have been absorbed in the services of
       the MPSEB for all purposes they cannot be discriminated in respect
       of benefit of regular pension which is paid to the regular employees
       of the MPSEB. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment as
       contained in paragraph 14 is reproduced hereunder:
            “14. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. The
            respondents are directed to extend the pensionary benefits
            and other fringe benefits to the absorbed employees who


2    BKS
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                             407

                Vijay Kumar Joshi v. Akash Tripathi & Ors.


           are now the employees of M.P. State Electricity Board.
           The exercise of passing necessary orders in respect of
           pensionary benefits and other fringe benefits be passed
           within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of
           certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed.
           No order as to costs.”
10. This judgment of the Single Judge dated 07.05.2015 was challenged
    by the MPSEB before the Division Bench by way of intra Court
    appeal. The Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 preferred by the MPSEB
    was dismissed vide judgment dated 14.06.2016. Aggrieved by the
    same, the MPSEB preferred a Special Leave Petition which came to
    be dismissed on 30.11.2018 and the review filed against the same
    by the MPSEB was dismissed on 23.04.2019.
11. In the meantime, multiple proceedings were initiated by individuals
    claiming reliefs upon their merger with the MPSEB relating to
    promotion, applicability of the 6th Pay Commission and modification
    of their pay fixation etc. The Single Judge vide judgment dated
    03.04.2019 disposed of the bunch of petitions and issued certain
    directions, wherein direction no.(iv) related to entitlement of
    pensionary scheme and other fringe benefits as were applicable for
    the employees of the MPSEB relying upon the judgment in the Writ
    Appeal No. 334 of 2015. The said direction is reproduced hereunder:
           “(iv) The petitioners shall be entitled to get the benefit of
           pensionary scheme and other fringe benefits, which are
           applicable for the employees of M.P.S.E.B. as per the
           judgment of Indore Bench in W.A. No. 334/2015 (M.P. State
           Electricity Board (Now known as M.P. Paschim Kshetra
           Vidhyut Company Ltd. Indore) vs. Bijali Karmchari Sangh).”
12. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the MPSEB filed a bunch of Writ
    Appeals, the first being Writ Appeal No.897 of 2019. The Division
    Bench, vide order dated 27.06.2019 disagreed with the judgment in
    the Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 and, accordingly, referred the matter
    to the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench for adjudication of
    the following two questions:
           “(i) Whether the decision in the case of M.P. State
           Electricity Board (Now known as M.P. Paschim Kshetra
           Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd.) Indore Vs. Bijli Karmchari Sangh,
           W.A. No. 334/2015 wherein it has been held that the
408                                                        [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          employees of the society are entitled to pension in view
          of the decision rendered in the case of Panchraj Tiwari
          vs. M.P. State Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101, lays
          down the correct law?
          Whether in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court
          rendered in the case of Panchraj Tiwari vs. M.P. State
          Electricity Board, (2014) 5 SCC 101, M.P. Poorva Kshetra
          Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. vs. Uma Shankar Dwivedi, 2018
          SCC Online SC 1461: Civil Appeal No. 9146-9148/2018
          and Brajendra Singh Kushwah and others vs. M.P. State
          Electricity Board and others, SLP (C) No. 28516/2013,
          the respondents are entitled to the benefit of pension
          as claimed by them or whether they are governed by
          the terms of absorption which provides for payment of
          pension/gratuity as per the Rules and Regulations of the
          society concerned?”
13. By the impugned judgment of the Full Bench, as already noted in
    the opening paragraph, it has been held that the judgment of the
    Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.334 of 2015 did not lay down the
    correct law and further that the employees of the Societies absorbed
    with the MPSEB would not be entitled to pension as applicable to
    the regular employees of the MPSEB but would be governed by the
    rules and regulations of the Society. Consequent to the answers given
    to the two questions referred to the Full Bench, the Writ Appeals
    preferred by the MPSEB were allowed.
14. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been preferred by the employees.
15. In the appeal preferred by V.K.Joshi & Ors., the impugned judgment
    of the High Court in the contempt proceedings is of 30.04.2019 i.e.
    prior to the Full Bench decision which is dated 22.08.2019. In the
    said contempt proceedings, on the instructions and statement made
    on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court has held
    that the benefit of pension has been given to the absorbed employees
    from the date of their absorption. It was further held that they would
    not be entitled to counting of their service rendered in the society for
    purposes of calculating the period of qualifying service for determining
    the pension. In the other appeal relating to contempt filed by the BKS,
    the Contempt Court has closed the contempt proceedings based on
    the Full Bench judgment dated 22.08.2019.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                       409

               Vijay Kumar Joshi v. Akash Tripathi & Ors.


16. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have
    perused the material on record.
17. As the facts noted above would reflect, that things have become
    complicated because of the long duration during which litigation has
    remained pending and also because of multiplicity of proceedings. We
    will, however, deal with the issues raised one by one and ultimately
    these appeals may be decided by invoking this Court’s power under
    Article 142 of the Constitution of India, as otherwise it would result
    into disparity and discrimination of similarly situated employees.
18. First and foremost, the litigation which started with Writ Petition
    No.1151 of 2005 instituted by BKS had attained finality upto this
    Court, much prior to the judgment by the Full Bench. To reopen and
    reconsider the reliefs granted to them on the basis of the judgment
    of the Full Bench would not only be unfair but also unwarranted. The
    lis between the parties arising from Writ Petition No.1151 of 2005
    stood concluded and would be binding on the parties and, therefore,
    whatever relief was granted to the absorbed employees covered by
    the BKS petition will have to be extended to them. It is apparent from
    the perusal of the orders passed in the contempt proceedings and
    also from the pleadings placed before this Court, that the members of
    the BKS have been granted pension. However, the period of service
    has been counted from the date of their absorption till the date of
    their retirement. The claim of the BKS is that the period of service
    rendered in the Society should also be counted and treated as part
    of qualifying service for determining their pension.
19. On the other hand, if the view taken by the Full Bench is to be upheld,
    then the employees who had filed the petitions, which led to the Full
    Bench decision would not be entitled to any pension at all. So, on
    the one hand, pension has been awarded to members of the BKS,
    although the period of service considered is not to the satisfaction
    of the BKS. On the other hand, the writ petitioners, who are parties
    to the matters involved in the Full Bench judgment, would not be
    entitled to any pension. We now proceed to deal with this complex
    situation as to how to formulate relief uniformly for all the employees
    of the society who were absorbed by the MPSEB.
20. The employees, once absorbed, are required to be treated on par
    with other employees of the MPSEB, as held by this Court in the
    case of Panchraj Tiwari vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity
410                                                           [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


       Board and Others.3 This judgment recognises that upon merger
       or absorption, the original identity of the service ceases to exist
       and complete functional integration must follow. Paragraph 6 of the
       aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:
             “6. Integration/merger of services means creation of a
             homogenous service by the merger of service personnel
             belonging to different services:
             6.1. Though it is difficult to have a perfect coalescence of
             the services on such merger, the principle of equivalence
             is to be followed while absorbing the employees, to the
             extent possible.
             6.2. Though integration of services thus postulates equation
             of posts, it is not invariably necessary to prepare the
             seniority list on the basis of the pay drawn by the incumbent
             in the equated category. It is always open to the authority
             concerned to adopt a just and the equitable principle on
             fixation of seniority.
             6.3. Once a service is merged with another service, the
             merged service gets its birth in the integrated service and
             loses its original identity. There cannot be a situation,
             where even after merger, absorption or integration, such
             services which were merged or absorbed, still retain their
             original status. If so, it is not an absorption or merger or
             integration, it will only be a working arrangement without
             any functional integration.”
21. The terms of absorption relied upon by the respondents, have further
    been relaxed by this Court in M.P.Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co.
    Ltd v. Uma Shankar Dwivedi4 and in Brajendra Singh Kushwah
    & Ors v. M.P. State Electricity Board and Ors.5 Before this Court
    in the case of Uma Shankar Dwivedi (supra) statement was made
    by the learned Advocate General for the State of Madhya Pradesh
    that it had no objection in granting benefits similar to employees
    of MPSEB from the date of absorption. Order dated 02.08.2018 is
    reproduced hereunder:


3   (2014) 5 SCC 101
4   Civil Appeal No. 9146-9148 of 2018.
5   SLP (Civil) No.28516 of 2013.
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                       411

               Vijay Kumar Joshi v. Akash Tripathi & Ors.


           “The learned Advocate General for the State of Madhya
           Pradesh submits that the petitioners have no objection in
           granting the benefits to the respondent, as were granted
           to the employees of the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity
           Board (MPSEB) on the date of absorption.
           To this extent, there is an agreement on both sides.”
     Thereafter vide final order dated 05.09.2018, this Court directed
     for implementation of the 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission for the
     absorbed employees. Further the order in the case of Brajendra
     Singh Kushwah (supra) was based upon the judgment in the
     case of Panchraj Tiwari (supra). The order dated 27.04.2015 is
     reproduced below:
           “The respondent-Board has stated in paragraph 5 of the
           counter affidavit as follows:
                “It is submitted that the Answering Respondent
                in compliance of the Judgment of this Hon’ble
                Court passed in judgment dated 4th March, 2014
                in Civil Appeal No. 4371 of 2008 vide order
                dated 24.12.2014 and clarification order dated
                18.04.2014 has decided to grant the benefits
                to the petitioners at par with the employees of
                the Answering Respondents in the matter of
                pay scale, dearness allowance and other fringe
                benefits w.e.f. 4th March 2014 after calculating
                the benefits till 3rd March, 2014 notionally.”
           The respondent-Board shall grant the entire benefits to
           the petitioners as stated above within six weeks.
           The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.”
22. It is settled through these judgements that full functional integration
    carries with it the rights and benefits attached to the new service.
    However, it is pertinent to note that the benefits and relaxations
    given by the above judgments have already been implemented and
    the State had accepted the legal position of extending the benefits
    from the date of absorption.
23. It would be wholly unjust to deny pension benefits to the absorbed
    employees when they are performing the same duties and discharging
412                                                         [2025] 6 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       the same responsibilities as other MPSEB employees. Further in
       the judgment in the case of BKS, relief has already been granted
       partially. Thus, there cannot be two classes of employees in the same
       organisation. One set with pension and the other without pension.
       In such circumstances, denying them the benefit of pension solely
       on the ground of their origin in the societies would amount to unjust
       discrimination. We therefore hold that all the absorbed employees
       would be entitled to pension in the peculiar facts and circumstances
       of the present case.
24. The remaining question is 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. The entitlement
    for pension is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
    (Pension) Rules, and the relevant provision is Rule 3(p), which
    reads as follows:
            “3(p) ‘Qualifying service’ means the period between
            the date of joining pensionable service under the State
            Government and retirement therefrom which shall be
            taken into account for purpose of the pension and gratuity
            admissible under these rules and includes the period
            which qualifies under any other order or rule for the time
            being in force.”
       Further, Rule 12(2) provides that qualifying service begins from the
       date the employee assumes charge of the post to which they are first
       appointed, whether on a substantive, officiating, or temporary basis,
       in the services of the State Government. Rule 12(2) of the Madhya
       Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules are reproduced hereunder:
            “12. Commencement of qualifying service.
            (2) Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying
            service of a Government servant shall commence fr6m
            the date he takes charge of the post to which he is
            first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or
            temporary capacity.”
       Rule 13(1) lays down that the service of a government servant shall
       not qualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government.
       Rule 13(1) is reproduced hereunder:
[2025] 6 S.C.R.                                                          413

                  Vijay Kumar Joshi v. Akash Tripathi & Ors.


             “13. Conditions subject to which service qualifies.
             (1)The service of a Government servant shall not qualify
             unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government,
             or under conditions determined by the Government.”
25. In view of the above, while the appellants are held entitled to pension
    from the MPSEB, the period of service rendered in the Society prior
    to absorption cannot be counted. This is for the reason that such
    service was not under the State Government, and was not governed
    by its rules. The appellants would thus be eligible for pension from the
    date of their absorption into MPSEB, from which point they became
    employees governed by State rules.
26. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed to the extent that the appellants
    shall be paid pension by the MPSEB, with effect from their respective
    dates of absorption. Impugned orders stand modified as above. The
    respondents to implement the above directions within a period of
    four months from today and pay all the arrears of pension within
    the same time.
27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey