Nanuram S/O Shri Bhairaj Ji ... vs Public Works Department
2021 Latest Caselaw 6463 MP

 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

                         W. A. No. 419 / 2019
 NANURAM (DECD.) THROUGH LR SMT. KUSHAL BAI Vs. STATE OF MP & OTHERS
                                                               --- 1 ---
INDORE, Dated : 05/10/2021
         Mr. R. P. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
         Mrs. Vinita Phaye, learned counsel for the respondent -

State.

With consent, finally heard.

This intra-Court appeal assails the order of writ Court passed in W.P.No. 6825/2015 dated 11/12/2018, whereby petition filed by the appellant seeking benefit of pension, was declined by the learned Single Judge on the basis of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Mamta Shukla Vs. State of MP and others reported in 2011 (3) MPLJ 210.

Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of Mamta Shukla (supra) was considered by Division Bench of this Court in a case of Gangman itself and this Court opined that the Gangman having been regularised and after regularisation rendered qualifying services and, therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of pension, as per M. P. (Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. Division Bench affirmed the order of writ Court granting said benefits. Thus, present appellant, being similarly situated, deserves similar treatment. Reliance is placed on the Government order dated 14/7/1998 whereby the appellant was regularised as a Gangman. Counting services from that date ie., 01/01/1997, the date from which appellant was regularised till the date of his retirement ie., 31/12/2001, the appellant has admittedly completed qualifying service as per the said Rules, hence, appellant cannot be deprived from the fruits of retiral dues flowing from the said Rules.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

W. A. No. 419 / 2019 NANURAM (DECD.) THROUGH LR SMT. KUSHAL BAI Vs. STATE OF MP & OTHERS

--- 2 ---

Per contra, Mrs. Vinita Phaye, learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer and supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No other point is pressed by the parties.

We have heard parties at length and perused record. Learned Single Judge rejected the Writ Petition by holding thus :

The Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Mamta Shukla Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2011(3) MPLJ 210 has held that the M.P. (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 is to be read cogently with the Recruitment Rules and that for the purpose of rendering service the employee has to attained the status which means an employee has to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules and further that the employees who were not appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules framed by the concerned department would not be eligible to count the past service as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension in accordance with the Pension Rules of 1979.

In the present case, the applicable Recruitment Rules is the M.P. Public Woks Department Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1976. Since the petitioner has not completed the minimum period for pension as prescribed in the Pension Rules, 1979 after his appointment in the Workcharged Establishment as per the Recruitment Rules of 1976, therefore, the respondents have not committed any error in holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the pensionary benefits.

The writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed.

A plain reading of these paragraphs makes it clear that the learned Single Judge assumed that under the Rules of 1979, the appellant has not completed qualifying service.

This aspect was considered by the Division Bench in HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE

W. A. No. 419 / 2019 NANURAM (DECD.) THROUGH LR SMT. KUSHAL BAI Vs. STATE OF MP & OTHERS

--- 3 ---

W.A.No. 179/2010 (State of M.P. Vs. Ramchandra Singh) decided on 5/8/2013. Respondent therein was a Gangman. He was initially appointed as a Daily Wager, but was regularised w.e.f. 01/01/1996 and retired on 30/06/2000. At the cost of repetition, the present appellant was regularised on 1/1/1997 and retired on 31/12/2001. Thus, both of them have rendered almost similar years of service after regularisation.

The Division Bench distinguished the Full Bench decision in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) and opined that after regularisation since the respondent has completed qualifying service, he deserves pension and other benefits. We see no reason to deviate from the said principle laid down by the Division Bench.

Thus, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 11/12/2018 is set aside. The respondent shall calculate the retiral dues of the appellant within 90 days and pay the same as per M.P. (Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 to the appellant (legal representative) within 90 days from the date this order is produced. Failing which it will carry 9% interest till the date of actual payment.

Appeal is allowed.

Certified copy, as per Rules.

                   (SUJOY PAUL)                       (ANIL VERMA)
                     JUDGE                              JUDGE
       KR



Digitally signed by KAMAL RATHORE
Date: 2021.10.05 12:40:15 +05'30'