Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Uttara Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:20759
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 8953 of 2019
1 - Smt. Uttara Pandey W/o Late Badri Prasad Aged About 66 Years R/o
Village Konar, Police Station Mulmula, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir
Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Acting Through Secretary, Health And Family
Welfare Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanandi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - District Ayurved Officer Bilaspur Division, Nutan Colony Seepat Road,
Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
3 - Superintendent Cum District Officer Raigarh District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
(Cause title, as taken from CIS)
For Petitioner Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer
Dr. Yashpal Singh Dhruv, District Ayush Officer,
Bilaspur / Officer In-charge of the Case is also
present in person.
2
SB : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi
Order on Board
06/05/2025
1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter
is heard finally.
2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :-
"10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent
authorities to place all the records including the proceeding of the
Departmental Scrutiny Committee for the perusal of Hon'ble Court.
10.2 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent
authorities to regularize the services of late Badri Prasad from the
date of his initial appointment i.e. 07.11.1983 and also to give all
consequential benefits including pension till the date of his death
and thereafter to the petitioner, being his widow.
10.3. Such other relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be
given to the petitioner.
3. Facts of the case in brief, as projected by the petitioner, is that the
petitioner is unfortunate widow of late Badri Prasad Pandey, who was initially
appointed as Aushdhalaya Sewak under the Health Department (Ayurvedic
Chikitsa) on 07.11.1983 vide Annexure P-1 for a period 89 days. Thereafter, he
(husband of the petitioner) was appointed on Ad-hoc basis with monthly salary
of Rs. 380/- and in the prevailing pay scale of Rs.380-5-425-10-495 vide order
dated 29.05.1984 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, on being false complaint
made against husband of the petitioner that he had tampered with the date of
birth in his mark-sheet of 8 th class in order to get appointment, one Criminal
case No. 178 / 1996 {Crime No. 192/1990} for the offences under Sections
3
468, 471 & 420 of the IPC was registered against him at Police Station
Sarkanda, District Bilaspur and he was arrested. After registration of aforesaid
criminal case and due to detention, he was placed under suspension vide order
dated 10.04.1992, but in the said criminal case, he was acquitted of the alleged
charges by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur vide judgment dated
10.07.1996 and after his acquittal, his suspension was revoked and he was
reinstated in service vide order dated 05.01.1999. Thereafter, he is
superannuated on 30.06.2016, despite that his service was regularized with
effect from 27.01.2016. Thus, late husband of petitioner worked with
Respondent Department for more than 30 years, despite that his service was
regularized belatedly and even he / his wife (petitioner) was not granted
pension. Therefore, petitioner has filed instant petition seeking relief as has
been stated in opening paragraph of this order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while referring to his
pleadings, would submit that, after reinstatement of petitioner's husband in
service, he worked under District Ayurveda Office, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur
and superannuated on 30.06.2016. Thereafter, he expired on 01.03.2019.
Learned counsel further submits that despite such long service, husband of the
petitioner was not regularized in his service, therefore, writ petition bearing
W.P. (S) No. 3918 / 2018 has been filed by him before this Court on 14.07.2008
and in pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2015 passed by this court in the
said writ petition, case of petitioner's husband was considered and, thereafter,
his services was regularized w.e.f. 27.01.2016 vide order dated 4.2.2016
(Annexure P-8) passed by District Ayurved Officer, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur /
respondent No. 2 herein. It is further contended that regular time scale was
already granted to late Badri Prasad Pandey (husband of the petitioner) vide
order dated 29.05.1984, thus, he completed more than 15 years of his service
4
in the year 2000, despite that his service was not regularized from the date of
his initial appointment i.e. from 07.11.1983 or his service ought to have been
regularized from 5th March, 2008 when Circular (Annexure R-1) in this regard
was issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department in
compliance of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Secretary,
State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) And Others reported in
2006 (4) SCC 1. As such, he prayed that relief sought for may be granted to
the petitioner.
5. The State has filed its reply stating that appointment of Badri Prasad
Pandey (husband of the petitioner) was made on ad hoc and temporary basis
and he was put under suspension because of registration of criminal case
against him.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State while referring to its reply
would submit that after reinstatement of the services of the petitioner's
husband vide order dated 05.01.1999, though he was served with the office of
respondent No. 2 and superannuated on 30.06.2016, but his employment was
regularized vide order dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure P-8) with effect from
27.01.2016. She further submits that since 10 years of regularization of
petitioner's husband in service was not completed, therefore, she is not entitled
to get pension, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
dismissed.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
8. When specific question was posed to the State Counsel, who is present
alongwith Officer-Incharge of the case, that as to service conditions of the
husband (deceased) of the petitioner shall be governed by which Rule, she
submits that his service condition will be governed by the provisions contained
5
in Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition
of Service Rule, 1975.
9. Undisputedly, husband of the petitiotner namely late Badri Prasad
Pandey was initially appointed as a Casual Labourer in contingency fund on
daily wages for a period of 89 days. Subsequently, he was appointed on Ad-
hoc basis with monthly salary of Rs. 380/- and in the prevailing pay scale of
Rs.380-5-425-10-495 vide order dated 29.05.1984 (Annexure P-2). Though, he
was remained suspended from 10.04.1992 to 05.01.1999 because one
Criminal case No. 178 / 1996 {Crime No. 192/1990} for the offences under
Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC registered against him at Police Station
Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, but in that criminal case, he has been acquitted of
the alleged charges vide judgment dated 10.7.1996 passed by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. Thereafter, his suspension was revoked vide
order dated 05.01.1999 passed by Divisional Officer, Ayurved, Bilaspur
Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) and in pursuance thereof, he was again kept in
service, thereafter, he worked there till his superannuation on 30.6.2016. Thus,
husband of the petitioner worked with the Respondent-Department for more
than 30 years, despite that his service was regularized with too much delay,
vide order dated 4.2.2016 with effect from 27.01.2016 (Annexure P-8), that too,
in pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. (S)
No. 3918 of 2008. Thus, regularization of husband of petitioner in service after
such long period of 30 years, cannot seem to be justified whereas State
Government itself had issued Circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure R-1) in
compliance of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Secretary, State Of Karnataka and others vs Umadevi (3) And Others
(supra) for regularization of daily wager and ad hoc employees of class III &
Class IV category.
6
10. Though, deceased/ husband of the petitioner worked with the
Respondents-department for more than 30 years, but nothing has been
brought by the petitioner/wife on record to accept her contention that
deceased/husband ought to have been regularized from the year 1983 or prior
to year 2008, but since vide Circular dated 5 th March, 2008, State Government
has taken a measure for regularization of daily wager employees and Ad hoc
employees of Class III & Class IV category, therefore, it would be appropriate
to regularize services of the husband of petitioner at-least with effect from
05.03.2008 i.e. from issuance of Circular dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure R-1) by the
State Government. In that view of the matter, it is found to be appropriate to
direct the respondents authorities to regularise service of the petitioner's
husband late Badri Prasad Pandey from 05.03.2008 instead of 27.01.2016.
11. Even after regularization of services of the petitioner's husband, she
(petitioner) will not be entitled for pension because as per Rule 2 (c) of
Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension
Rules, 1979 (henceforth, "Pension Rules, 1979"), after regularization of
deceased employee i.e. on 27.01.2016, he was superannuated on 30.06.2016
and expired on 01.03.2019, as such, he could not have completed 10 years of
service after his regularization, but for eligibility of Pension to the regular
employee of work-charged / contingency establishment, the State of
Chhattisgarh has issued Circular dated 26.05.2018, which reads thus:-
वित्त निर्देश 30/2018
छत्तीसगढ़ शासन
वित्त विभाग
मंत्रालय, महानदी भवन, नया रायपुर
क्र. 249/एफ 2018-04-04169/वि/नि/चार नया रायपुर, दिनांक 26 मई, 2018
प्रति,
शासन के समस्त विभाग,
7
अध्यक्ष, राजस्व मण्डल, विलासपुर,
समस्त विभागाध्यक्ष,
समस्त संभागीय आयुक्त.
समस्त जिलाध्यक्ष,
छत्तीसगढ़
विषयः-सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग के ज्ञापन क्रमांक एफ 12-1/2007/1-3 दिनांक 5 मार्च,
2008 के अंतर्गत नियमित हुए शासकीय सेवकों को पेंशन की पात्रता के संबंध में।
संदर्भः- 1. वित्त विभाग का ज्ञापन क्रमांक 79 / एल 2017-04-00364 / वि / नि / चार, नया
रायपुर दिनांक 28.2.2018
2. वित्त विभाग का ज्ञापन क्रमांक 173 /एफ 2018-04-04169 / वि / नि / चार, नया
रायपुर, दिनांक 7.4.2018
---------
सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग के विषयांकित ज्ञापन के अंतर्गत कार्यभारित/आकस्मिकता
स्थापना में नियमित हुए दैनिक वेतनभोगी कर्मचारियों को छत्तीसगढ़ (कार्यभारित तथा
आकस्मिकता से वेतन पाने वाले कर्मचारी) पेंशन नियम 1979 के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत 10 वर्ष से
अनाधिक सेवा होने एवं अंशदायी पेंशन योजना के सदस्य होने के कारण पेंशन की पात्रता नहीं
होती है। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में दायर याचिका क्रमांक W.P.(S) No. 129/2012 बिहारी
लाल जायसवाल विरूद्ध छ०ग० शासन एवं W.P.(A) No. 209/2013 राम अवतार वर्मा विरूद्ध
छ०ग० शासन में पारित आदेश दिनांक 26.2.2015 के परिपालन में याचिकाकर्ताओं की दैनिक
वेतनभोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में की गयी सेवा अवधि को पेंशन की पात्रता के लिए 10 वर्ष की
न्यूनतम सेवा की सीमा तक गणना हेतु शामिल करने के निर्देश जारी किये गये है।
2/ राज्य शासन द्वारा निर्णय लिया गया है कि सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग के विषयांकित ज्ञापन
दिनांक 5 मार्च, 2008 के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत नियमित स्थापना अथवा
कार्यभारित/आकस्मिकता स्थापना में नियमित किये गये दैनिक वेतनभोगी कर्मचारियों की दैनिक
वेतनभोगी के रूप में की गई सेवा अवधि को पेंशन की पात्रता के लिए आवश्यक न्यूनतम 10 वर्ष
की सेवा की गणना के लिए शामिल करने पर यदि पेंशन की पात्रता आती है तो इन कर्मचारियों को
छत्तीसगढ़ सिविल सेवाएं (पेंशन) नियम, 1976 अथवा छत्तीसगढ़ (कार्यभारित तथा
आकस्मिकता से वेतन पाने वाले कर्मचारी) पेंशन नियम-1979, जो भी लागू हो, के अंतर्गत उक्त
न्यूनतम अवधि हेतु पेंशन की पात्रता निम्न शर्तों के अधीन दी जाये--
(1) दैनिक वेतनभोगी कर्मचारी का नियमितीकरण सामान्य प्रशासन विभाग के
ज्ञापन क्रमांक एफ 12-1 /2007 / 1-3 दिनांक 5 मार्च, 2008 के अंतर्गत
आकस्मिकता / कार्यभारित स्थापना अथवा नियमित स्थापना के पद पर किया
गया हो।
(2) कर्मचारी की दैनिक वेतनभोगी के रूप में नियुक्त्ति 1.1.89 से 31.12.1997
की अवधि में हुई हो तथा उस पद पर या समकक्ष पद पर लगातार कार्य किया हो।
(3) व्यक्ति रिक्त / स्वीकृत नियमित पद के विरूद्ध पदस्थ किया गया हो और
विभागीय भर्ती नियमों में निर्धारित शैक्षणिक एवं अन्य योग्यता रखता हो।
(4) इन कर्मचारियों को उपादान की पात्रता श्रम नियमों के अंतर्गत होती है, अतः
पेंशन नियमों के प्रावधानों के तहत् उपादान की पात्रता नहीं होगी।
(5) इन कर्मचारियों के अंशदायी पेंशन योजना के सदस्य होने की स्थिति में उक्त
योजना के अंतर्गत शासन द्वारा दिये गये नियोक्ता अंशदान एवं उस पर ब्याज की
राशि संदर्भित ज्ञापन दिनांक 28.2.2018 एवं 7.4.2018 के निर्देशानुसार राज्य
शासन को वापसी / समायोजन योग्य होगी। यदि उक्त राशि आहरित कर ली गयी
हो तो इसकी वापसी के उपरांत ही पेंशन भुगतान किया जायेगा।
3/ इन निर्देशों के अंतर्गत पेंशन की पात्रता सुनिश्चित करने की जिम्मेदारी कार्यलय प्रमुख की
होगी। संयक्त
ु संचालक - कोष, लेखा एवं पेंशन भी पेंशन स्वीकृत करते समय यह सुनिश्चित करेंगे
कि पेंशन की पात्रता हेतु सभी मापदण्डों का पालन किया गया है।
छत्तीसगढ़ के राज्यपाल के नाम से
तथा आदेशानुसार
Sd/-
(एस. के. चक्रवर्ती ) 26/5/2018
संयक्त
ु सचिव
12. Perusal of aforesaid circular shows that work-charged and
contingency paid employee, who has worked for 10 years as regular
employee, may be eligible for pension and if 10 years service is not
completed after his regularization, then, period of his employment as work-
charged and contingency paid employee will be calculated for counting
minimum service of 10 years for the purpose of grant of pension. Nothing
has been brought by the respondents to substantiate the fact that late
husband of petitioner was not fulfilling the criteria mentioned in aforesaid
circular. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, I feel inclined to
allow the instant writ petition in part.
13. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. Respondent
authorities are directed to reconsider the issue of regularization of service of
the petitioner's husband - late Badri Prasad Pandey from 5.3.2008 instead
of 27.01.2016 and accordingly grant him / his wife (petitioner) revised pay
scale as per Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid
Employees) Revision of Pay Rules, 1977. It is further directed that for the
purpose of grant of pension to the petitioner's husband / petitioner, period of
service of deceased employee (husband of the petitioner) as contingency
paid employee be calculated for counting minimum service of 10 years and
grant petitioner's husband / petitioner pension as per the Pension Rules,
1979.
14. Let this exercise be concluded by Respondent authorities expeditiously
preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt / submission of
copy of this order.
15. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Amit Judge
AMIT Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
KUMAR DUBEY
Date: 2025.05.27
DUBEY 13:05:23 +0530
