Chattisgarh High Court
Baisakhu Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 November, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(S) No. 6454 of 2021
1. Baisakhu Sahu S/o Samay Lal Sahu Aged About 64 Years R/o Village
Tendubhata Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
2. Amrika Sahu S/o Ananda Sahu Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kevtara Tahsil
Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
3. Tiharu Ram Lodhi S/o Joidha Lodhi Aged About 68 Years R/o Village Muglatola,
Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Work Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Enginner In Chief Public Work Department Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Chief Engineer Public Work Department Nirmal Bhawan Sector 19 Atal Nagar
Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector Bemetara, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
5. Executive Engineer Public Work Department Division Bemetara, District
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
6. Joint Director Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg District Durg,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners: Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.
For State/Respondents: Smt. Sunita Jain, Govt. Advocate.
Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal
Order On Board
22.11.2021
1. Heard.
2. It is contended that the petitioners had joined their services as contingency paid
employee. Later on, they were regularized by the department and superannuated from
service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that the service of the
petitioners as contingency paid/temporary employee prior to the date of regularization
has not been counted for retiremental dues, however, that should have been counted.
It is further contended that this issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this
Court in W.A. No.88 of 2019 and the following orders have been passed :-
"5. Petitioner's services during his posting in the Contingency Paid
Establishment were governed under the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation
Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and
Conditions of Service Rules, 1977. Under Rule 4(2)(b) of the said Rules, a
contingency paid employee is accorded temporary status immediately upon
completion of 5 years service. On representation by the Employees Union, the
State Government issued a circular on 02.03.2005, which reads as follows:
^^NRrhlx<+ 'kklu
foRr ,oa ;kstuk foHkkx ea=ky;]
nkm dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj
dekad [email protected]@[email protected]@04 jk;iqj] fnukad 2 ekpZ] 2005
izfr]
'kklu ds leLr foHkkx
v/;{k] jktLo eaMy] fcykliqj]
leLr foHkkxk/;{k]
leLr ftyk/;{k]
NRrhlx<+ A
fo"k; % dk;[email protected] fuf/k ls osru ikus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;fer LFkkiuk esa fu;qfDr gksus ij
vgZrknk;h lsok dk fu/kkZj.k A
NRrhlx<+ ¼dk;ZHkkfjr rFkk vkdfLedrk ls osru ikus okys deZpkjh½ ias'ku fu;e] 1979 ds fu;e
6¼3½ esa ;g izko/kku gS fd fdlh vLFkk;h deZpkjh ds] fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds fdlh Hkh fu;fer isa'ku
;ksX;in lafofy;u fd;s tkus ij] 1 tuojh] 1974 ls vkxs dh xbZ lsok] c'krsZfd ,slh lsok 6 o"kZ ls de dh
u gks] isa'ku ds fy; fxuh tk;sxh ekuksa fd ,slh lsok fdlh fu;fer in ij dh xbZ gksA^^ y?kqosru deZpkjh
la?kksa }kjk jkT; 'kklu ds /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd dqN foHkkxksa }kjk vgZrkdkjh lsok dh x.kuk gsrq mDr
fu;eksa ds rgr vLFkkbZ lsok dks 'kkfey ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA leLr foHkkxksa ls vuqjks/k gS fd os mDr
izko/kkuksa dks vius v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa ds /;ku esa ykosa rFkk buds vkk/kkj ij vgZrkdkjh lsok dh x.kuk
djrs gq, yafcr isa'ku izdj.kksa dk rRdky fujkdj.k djus gsrq funsZf'kr djsa A
[email protected]&
¼lrh'k ik.Ms;½
milfpo]
NRrhlx<+ 'kklu]
foRr foHkkx^^
6. In the above quoted circular, the State Government clearly directed that
for counting the pensionable service, the period spent as temporary employee
shall also be counted. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has
also held in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava vs State of M. P. and
others, reported in (2003)4 MPLJ 376, that period of temporary service
rendered by a contingency paid employee shall be counted in the
pensionable service.
7. In view of the circular issued by the State Government and the law laid
down by the Division Bench of the M. P. High Court in Shrikrishna
Shrivastava (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's
pensionable service should be counted from the date he completed 5 years
service from the date of initial appointment, as immediately upon completion
of 5 years service in the Contingency Paid Establishment, the petitioner had
acquired temporary status under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1977. It is
ordered accordingly. Consequently, it is directed that the respondents shall
recalculate the petitioner's pensionable service in accordance with this order
and pay him the entire consequential benefits within a period of 3 months
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. There shall be no
order as to interest on the arrears.
8. The writ appeal is allowed in the above stated terms.
3. It is ordered accordingly. The judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ
Appeal No.88 of 2019 shall also be applicable in this case to the extent that the service
rendered by the petitioners as daily wage employee prior to regularization shall also be
counted for the purpose of grant of retiral dues including pensionary benefit. The
implementation of the same shall be after due verification of the service record of the
petitioner.
4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal)
JUDGE
Nikita
