D.D. Vaishnav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2356 Chatt

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2356 Chatt
Judgement Date : 16 September, 2021

Chattisgarh High Court

D.D. Vaishnav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2021

                                     -1-


                                                                         NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                          WPS No. 4961 of 2021
1.    D.D. Vaishnav S/o Nanku Das Aged About 68 Years R/o Village
      Andhiyar Khor, Tahsil - Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
2.    Kumar Sao S/o Natthu Ram Aged About 70 Years R/o Village Murkuta,
      Tahsil- Nawagar, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
3.    Jagdish Prasad Sahu S/o Bhondal Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o
      Village Eramsahi Tahsil Nawagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.)
                                                              ---- Petitioners
                                 Versus
1.    State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Water Resources
      Department Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur (C.G.)
2.    Chief Engineer Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water Resources
      Department Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
3.    Sub Divisional Officer Water Resources Department Sub Divisional
      Nawagarh District- Bemetara (C.G.)
4.    Executive Engineer Water Resources Department Division- Bemetara,
      District- Bemetara (C.G.)
5.    Joint Director, Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg
      District- Durg (C.G.)
                                                          ---- Respondents

For Petitioners : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyash Dhar, Panel Lawyer

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

16/09/2021

1. 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 retirement 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 ;kst uk foHkkx ea= ky;] nkm dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iq j

dekad [email protected]@[email protected]@04 jk;iq j ] fnukad 2 ekpZ ] 2005

iz f r] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx v/;{k] jktLo eaM y] fcykliq j ] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr ftyk/;{k] NRrhlx<+ A

fo"k; % dk;Z H [email protected] fuf/k ls osr u ikus okys deZ p kfj;ksa dh fu;fer LFkkiuk esa fu;q f Dr gksu s ij vgZ r knk;h lso k dk fu/kkZ j .k A

NRrhlx<+ ¼dk;Z H kkfjr rFkk vkdfLedrk ls osr u ikus okys deZ p kjh½ ias' ku fu;e] 1979 ds fu;e 6¼3½ esa ;g iz k o/kku gS fd fdlh vLFkk;h deZ p kjh ds] fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds fdlh Hkh fu;fer isa' ku ;ksX ; in laf ofy;u fd;s tkus ij] 1 tuojh] 1974 ls vkxs dh xbZ lso k] c'krsZ fd ,sl h lso k 6 o"kZ ls de dh u gks] isa' ku ds fy; fxuh tk;sx h ekuksa fd ,sl h lso k fdlh fu;fer in ij dh xbZ gksA ^^ y?kq o sr u deZ p kjh la? kksa }kjk jkT; 'kklu ds /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd dq N foHkkxksa }kjk vgZ r kdkjh lso k dh x.kuk gsr q mDr fu;eksa ds rgr vLFkkbZ lso k dks 'kkfey ugha fd;k tk jgk gS A leLr foHkkxksa ls vuq j ks/ k gS fd os mDr iz k o/kkuksa dks vius v/khuLFk dk;kZ y ;ksa ds /;ku esa ykosa rFkk buds vkk/kkj ij vgZ r kdkjh lso k dh x.kuk djrs gq , yaf cr isa' ku iz d j.kksa dk rRdky fujkdj.k djus gsr q funsZ f '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."

2. 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.