Surendra Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5138 MP

                                                         1
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 8th OF APRIL, 2022

                                           WRIT PETITION No. 17584 of 2018

                               Between:-
                               SURENDRA SINGH THAKUR S/O BAHADUR SINGH
                               , AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PUMP
                               OPERATOR (NOW RETIRED) HIRAN DIVISION
                               WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT JABALPUR
                               DISTT. JABALPUR R/O GENESH WARD KARELI
                               DISTT. NARSINGHPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                               (BY SHRI MOHAN LAL SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

                               AND

                      1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WATER
                               RESOURCE MINISTRY GOVERNMENT OF M.P.
                               VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL BHOPAL M.P.
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.       ENGINEER  IN  CHIEF WATER    RESOURCE
                               DEPARTMENT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.       CHIEF    ENGINEER        WATER     RESOURCE
                               D EPARTM EN T B A N G A N G A BASIN (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                      4.       EXECUTIVE ENGINEER         WATER         RESOURCE
                               D EPA R TM EN T H I R A N D I V I S I O N PACHPEDI
                               (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                               (BY SMT.SWATI ASEEM GEORGE, PANEL LAWYER)

                            T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                          ORDER

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to quash impugned order dated 15.12.2017 Annexure-P/1 whereby petitioner's claim for pension has been rejected by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Hiran Pachpedi, District- Jabalpur.

Signature SAN Verified Not Petitioner is also praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Digitally signed by respondents to make payment of regular pay-scale which was granted to the SARSWATI MEHRA Date: 2022.04.12 14:44:35 IST

petitioner w.e.f. 25.06.2004 and accordingly settle the pension case of the petitioner. Petitioner has also sought interest at the rate of 18% on the proposed arrears.

Petitioner's submits that he was appointed in the year 1987 on the post of

Kalasi. The continued to work in the respondent department when vide order dated 25.06.2004, Annexure-P/3 in which name of the present petitioner appears at S.No.5 he was granted minimum of the regular pay-scale applicable to work charged employees.

It is petitioner's contention that this benefit was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 30.08.2006 but when petitioner and persons similarly situated like him had filed W.P. 17752/2006 (S) then vide order dated 30.03.2010 a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held that order dated 30.08.2006 and action of the respondents in refusing to pay arrears to the petitioner at minimum of the time- scale is not maintainable and consequently quashed in the said order. It was directed that respondents will pay to the petitioner's salary at minimum/time-scale of pay, as per earlier orders dated 19.02.2003 and 25.06.2004.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reading from said order dated 30.03.2010 submits that there is mention of regularization of the petitioners on internal page 2 of said order and placing reliance on said observation, it is submitted that since petitioner's were regularized they are entitled to benefit of pension etc. However, when learned counsel for the petitioner is required to show from records that there is any order of regularization and when order dated 25.06.2004 is read along with the petitioner it is evident that though a committee was constituted for examining cases of persons eligible for regularization but in fact, order was passed not for regularization but to grant minimum of the pay-scale admissible to persons working in work charge establishment along with payable allowances.

I t has come on record that against order dated 30.03.2010 State had preferred a W.A. 1229/2010 and that W.A. was disposed of vide order dated 15.12.2010 whereby Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had modified the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the appellant i.e. the State Government to pay to the respondents salary in the minimum time-scale of pay and to not to make any recovery from the respondent. Thus, it is evident that there is no order of

regularization on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nandram Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P. and Others ILR 2012 MP 685 wherein it is held that circulars issued in the matter of grant of pay- scale and regularization prior to the delivery of judgment in Umadevi's case will be valid & applicable but facts of that case are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

Learned Panel Lawyer in her turn submits that since petitioner's service was

never regularized either in work charge and contingency paid establishment or in any other establishment therefore, petitioner is not entitled to pension. Petitioner is only entitled to payment of gratuity which was paid to the petitioner as is mentioned in Annexure-P/1 therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner interrupts and places reliance on order dated 01.12.2016 passed in W.P. No.19289/2011 to show that similarly situated person was granted benefit of pension but after completely reading the order has failed to make out a case that even that petitioner was given benefit of pension as is sought by the petitioner now. Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that since petitioner was never regularized in any of the establishments to which provisions of pension are applicable, petitioner being not a member of pensionable establishment is not entitled to grant of pension. Thus, petition is devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE sm