Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Umthi Bai @ Khorbahrin Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2025

                                            1




                                                           2025:CGHC:15155
                                                                            AFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                  WPS No. 4266 of 2020

1 - Smt. Umthi Bai @ Khorbahrin Sahu W/o Late Barsen Aged About 62
Years R/o Village Boierdih, Tehsil - Chhuriya District - Rajnandgaon
(Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, (C.G.)
                                                                        ... Petitioner
                                         versus


1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department,
Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, (C.G.)
2 - Superintendent Engineer Pwd Durg Mandal District - Durg (Chhattisgarh),
District : Durg, (C.G.)
3 - Excutive Engineer Pwd (B And R) Division Office, Rajnandgaon District -
Rajnandgaon. (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
                                                                   ... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. For Respondents : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order on Board

27/03/2025

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner is seeking following relief :-

"10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to produce the entire records for perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to grant fixed regular pay scale under the rules from the date when the petitioner attained the status of permanent workcharged paid employee.

10.3 The Hon'ble Court direct the respondents to give all benefits payable to a permanent workcharged paid employee.

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner together with cost of the petition."

2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed on

24.05.1999 under compassionate appointment scheme after death of her

husband namely Late Barsen, who was working as a Permanent Gangman in

the PWD (B&R) Department at Sub- Division Khairagarh, Dist -

Rajnandgaon. The petitioner was appointed as permanent Gangman in

service and even after lapse of 20 years, till filing of instant petition, she had

not been paid regular pay scale, therefore, the petitioner has filed instant

petition seeking aforesaid reliefs.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since

the petitioner was appointed as "permanent Gangman" in the Respondents-

Department, as such, her service condition will govern under 'Model Rule'

namely Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and

Condition of Service Rule, 1975. He would further submit that as per Rule

2(c) of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) (Work Charged and Contingency

Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (henceforth " Pension Rule, 1979"),

contingency and work-charged employees, who has completed fifteen years

of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974 would be permanent

employee. In the instant case, the petitioner has completed 15 years of

service as work-charged employee with the Respondents-Department,

therefore, for pension purpose, she had completed requisite requirement of

15 years on 23.05.2014, as such, she is entitled to get pay scale as per

Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Work-charged and Contingency Paid

Employees Revisions of Pay Rules, 1977, wherein the post of 'Gangman'

was shown at Serial No. (xxvii) in Annexure-1, Revised Scale of Pay (See

Rule 3), under the column "name of the post held by a workcharged or

contingency paid employee", therefore, relief, as sought for, may be granted

to the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench in

the matter of Vishnu and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others1.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while referring to its reply

would submit that petitioner's husband was a permanent Gangman and after

his death, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, as such,

her salary was paid as per Collector rate. Since the employment of the

petitioner was not regularized by the Department, as she was appointed in

the year 1999, whereas, cut of date was provided in Circular dated

05.03.2008 is "31.12.1997" and the persons, who are appointed after

aforesaid period are not eligible to claim for regularization, therefore,

employment of the petitioner has not been regularized, as such, she is not

entitled to receive pay scale as per Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh)

Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules,

1977, hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings

and documents appended thereto and also examined the relevant provisions

of aforesaid Rules 1 2006 (1) MPHT 374

6. During course of submission, when specific question was posed to

learned Counsel for the State that service conditions of the work-charged and

contingency paid employee of Public Work Department are governed under

which Rule, then she could not apprise the Court that, under which rule

service conditions of such employees are governed, rather she stated that

granting pension to work-charged and contingency paid employee are

governed under Chhattisgarh (Work-charged and Contingency Paid

Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.

7. Government of Chhattisgarh has framed 'Model Rule' for the

Departments namely "Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees

Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975 (henceforth, "Rules,

1975"). Vide said Rule, 1975, recruitment & service conditions of the

employees are governed. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) has

also framed Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees)

Pension Rules, 1979 whereby pension of such category of employees is

governed.

8. Pay scale of work-charged and contingency paid employee is

governed by Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Work-charged and

Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1977, framed under the

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, wherein the post of

Gangman was shown at serial No. (xxvii) in Annexure-1, Revised Scale of

Pay (See Rule 3), under the column "name of the post held by a workcharged

or contingency paid employee".

9. A conjoint reading of Rule 1975, Rule 1977 and Rule 1979 shows that

there is a post naming "Gangman" engaged by the respondent Department of

State of Chhattisgarh and to regulate their service conditions, pay-scale,

pension, etc., aforesaid Rules have been framed by the State Government

under the authority of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though, in Rule

1975, there is no specific provision regarding regularization or granting

permanent status to the employees. But Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1979

provides the definition of 'Permanent Employee' which reads as under :-

"2(c). 'Permanent employee' means a

contingency paid employee or a work-charged

employee who has completed fifteen years of

service or more on or after the 1 st January,

1974."

10. Thus, as per Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1979, work-charged and

contingency paid employee shall attained the status of "permanent employee"

after completion of fifteen years of service or more.

11. Work-charged and contingency paid employee are the employees of

class IV category. Taking undue advantage of their pitiable condition,

authorities did not pass appropriate order with regard to their regularization or

granting them permanent status, even after lapse of 15 year or more than

that. Though, after passing of the judgment in the matter of Secretary, State

Of Karnataka and others vs Umadevi (3) And Others 2, the State

Government has issued Circular in the year 2008 for regularization of

contingency / work-charged employee but only on the garb of that order,

State Government cannot exploit the fate of low paid employee, who have

2 2006 (4) SCC 1

worked for more than 15 years with respondent-Department, only because

competent authority has not passed order.

12. Further, Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Lakhanram Sahu

& others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected

cases3 has observed in paragraph 8, which reads as under :-

"8. The Appellants/Petitioners were appointed in different

department on daily wages. Rule 6 of the Contingency

Rules, 1975, provides that the work-charged establishment

shall consist of 'temporary' and 'permanent' employees.

Rule 7 of the Contingency Rules, 1975, provides for

appointment from three different sources viz. Direct

recruitment, promotion and transfer. Rule 4(2)(b) of the

Contingency Rules, 1975, provides that those appointed

after promulgation of the Contingency Rules, 1975, would

acquire status of temporary employees after completion of

five years of service. If the acquisition of temporary status

is by virtue of a statutory provision, subject to fulfillment of

the conditions prescribed under the same, the benefit flows

automatically. The absence of a formal specific order

granting that statutory status cannot take away the benefit

of the same to those who fulfill the requirement. To hold

otherwise will create an incongruous situation where a

person may fulfill the statutory requirements but will still

remain at the mercy of the Respondents who may or may

not issue the necessary formal order rendering the

3 Writ Appeal No. 281 of 2013 and other connected cases, decided on 26.02.2025

statutory provision redundant. Such an interpretation would

not only be arbitrary but would also be against the intention

of the rule maker generating clearly avoidable litigation.

Disputed claims would naturally fall in a different category.

13. Full bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Vishnu

And others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (supra) has held as

under :-

"13. While deciding the Gulab Singh v. State of M.P. and

others4, the 1977 Rules and Pension Rules of 1979 were

not brought to the notice of the Court. Under Rules 6 of

1976 Rules the employees who were in service for at

least fifteen years on 1-1-1974 were eligible for the status

of permanent work charged or contingency paid

employees. This has been made more liberal by the 1979

Rules. Rule 2(c) of the 1979 Rules lays down that a

contingency paid employee or a work-charge employee

becomes permanent employee whenever he completes

fifteen years of his service though it may be after

1- 1-1974.

15. It is well known principle of law that when two

different Rules contain different provisions the one which is

more beneficial to the employees has to be accepted in the

welfare state. xxx xxx xxx

4 W.P. No. 5484 of 2002, delivered on 10.02.2005

14. Recently, in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India5, Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under :-

"26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular"

appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended 5 2024 SCC Online SC 3826

periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

15. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on the post of

permanent Gangman on 24.05.1999 on compassionate ground after death of

her husband, thus despite lapse of 20 years till filing of the instant petition i.e.

4.10.2020, she was not granted status of permanent employee / regular

employee, which is against the provisions contained in Rule 2(c) of Pension

Rules, 1979, as after completion of 15 years of service i.e. in the year 2014,

the petitioner ought to have granted status of permanent / regular employee,

as such, she has to be granted fixed regular pay scale as per Madhya

Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees

Revision of Pay Rules, 1977, which has not been granted by respondent

authorities, therefore, I feel inclined to allow the instant petition.

16. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Respondent authorities are