Rajendra Kumar Goshwami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2098 Chatt

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2098 Chatt
Judgement Date : 2 September, 2021

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajendra Kumar Goshwami vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 2 September, 2021

                                      -1-


                                                                        NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                     Writ Petition (S) No. 3851 of 2021

   1. Rajendra Kumar Goshwami S/o Chhabilal Goshwami, Aged About
      65 Years, R/o Village - Gudiyari Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg
      Chhattisgarh
   2. Shital Prasad Parganiya S/o Maharaj Singh Parganiya, Aged About
      64 Years, R/o Village Taksiwa, Tahsil - Berla, District - Bemetara
      Chhattisgarh
                                                             ---- Petitioners
                                    Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Water Resources
      Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water Resources
      Department, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   3. Sub Divisional Officer, Tandula Water Resources, Sub - Division
      Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh

   4. Executive Engineer, Tandula Water Resources, Sub - Division Durg,
      District - Durg, Chhattisgarh

   5. Joint Director, Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg
      District Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                            ---Respondents

For Petitioners : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.

For State                :     Shri Ishan Verma, P.L..


                  Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                           Order on Board
02.09.2021.

1. The default pointed out by the Registry as of now stands ignored.

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 services of the petitioners as

contingency paid/temporary employee prior to the date of

regularization have 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'krsZ fd ,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 services 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 records of the petitioners.