Shankar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2497 Chatt

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2497 Chatt
Judgement Date : 22 September, 2021

Chattisgarh High Court

Shankar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 September, 2021

                                       -1-


                                                                             NAFR
              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                      Writ Petition (S) No. 5109 of 2021

      Shankar Tiwari S/o Mankamna Tiwari, Aged About 63 Years, R/o
      Village Dhangoan, Post- Andhiyarkhor, Tahsil Navagarh, District-
      Bemetara (C.G.)
                                                                ---- Petitioner
                                  Versus
   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Health
      Engineering Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya
      Raipur (C.G.)

   2. Engineer In Chief, Public Health Engineering Department, Raipur
      (C.G.)

   3. Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
      Durg, Circle- Durg, District- Durg (C.G.)

   4. Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Sub
      Division, Bemetara (C.G.)

   5. Joint Direction, Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg
      District Durg (C.G.)

                                                            ---Respondents

For Petitioners : Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate.

For State                 :     Shri Neeraj Pradhan, P.L..


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                             Order on Board
22.09.2021.

1. It is contended that the petitioner had joined his service as

contingency paid employee. Later on, he was regularized by the

department and superannuated from service on attaining the age of

superannuation. It is stated that the services of the petitioner 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.

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 petitioner 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 petitioner.