Chattisgarh High Court
Sattu Prasad Dubey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 September, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4871 of 2021
1. Sattu Prasad Dubey S/o Late Ripusudan Prasad Dubey, Aged About 69
Years R/o Village Nawagaon (Kala) Tahsil Than Khanhariya, District
Bemetara Chhattisgarh
2. Bhukhan Lal Verma S/o Latel Ram Verma, Aged About 68 Years R/o
Village Saja Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
3. Bahal Singh Thakur S/o Chhabil Singh Thakur Aged About 67 Years R/o
Village Pratappur, Tahsil Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
4. Kapil Singh Nirmalkar S/o Dariyav Singh Nirmalkar Aged About 72 Years
R/o Ward No. 18 Bazarpara Bemetara Tahsil And District Bemetara
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources
Depatment Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water Resources
Department Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department Sub Division
Nawagarh, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
4. Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Division Bemetara
District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
5. Joint Director, Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg District
Durg Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.
For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order on Board
14.09.2021 .
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'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.
4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Rohit
