Biran Bai Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8532 MP

                                1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT JABALPUR
                               BEFORE
               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
                        ON THE 28th OF JUNE, 2022

                  WRIT PETITION No. 14963 of 2019

        Between:-
        BIRAN BAI SONI W/O LATE GHANSHYAM SONI,
        AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE
        WIFE H.NO.268 GANESH MANDIR BARGI
        NAGAR POST BARGI NAGAR TEHSIL AND
        DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI R. B. TIWARI, ADVOCATE )

        AND

1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS
        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES
        DEPARTMENT     MANTRALAYA   VALLABH
        BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      CHIEF ENGINEER RANI AWANTI BAI SAGAR
        PA R I YO J A N A BARGI HILLS, JABALPUR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.      SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, VIDYUT AVAM
        YANTRIKI DIVISION BARGI HILLS, JABALPUR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.      EXECUTIVE   ENGINEER   VIDYUAT          AVAM
        YANTRIKI   DIVISION  NO.1 BARGI         HILLS,
        JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

5.      SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER VIDYUT AVAM
        YANTRIKI SUB DIVISION NO.1 BARGI HILLS,
        JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI SOURABH SONI, PANEL LAWYER )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                 ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:

"7 (i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to settle the family pension of the petitioner from due date within stipulated period, in the interest of justice.

(i)(a) To quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 (Annexure.P-9) passed by Respondent No.4 wherein rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension after death of her husband.

(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of orders passed by this Hon'ble

Court vide Annexure P/7 and P/8, in the interest of justice.

(iii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct respondents to pay the arrears of family pension alongwith interest at the rate of 12% payable to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

(iv) Any other relief/reliefs direction/directions, order/orders which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may be also issued. "

The facts as narrated in the petition are to the effect that the husband of the petitioner late Ghanshyam Soni who was initially appointed as Helper w.e.f. 24.05.1981, his services were regularized under Work Charged Establishment vide order dated 31.12.1987. Thereafter, husband of the petitioner died in harness on 12.11.1995. Upon his death, the petitioner submitted a representation containing prayer that the terminal dues of her late husband be paid to the petitioner like family pension and gratuity etc. However, the representation of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents vide impugned order dated 25.10.2019 contained in Annexure P/9. The authority while dismissing the claim of the petitioner observed that the employees

appointed in Work Charged Establishment/Contingency Paid Establishment are not entitled for pension/family pension if the said employees have not completed 10 years of qualifying service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue has been decided by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.02.2022 in W.P.No.8335/2021. He further submits that in the impugned order the reason has been assigned that an employee engaged in Work Charged Establishment/Contingency Paid Establishment if has not completed 10 years of qualifying service, then he is not entitled for pension/family pension. He also submits that by notification dated 30.01.1996, the qualifying service under the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 has been reduced from 10 years to 6 years and since in the present case, the husband of the petitioner had completed more than 7 years of service, therefore, her case was required to be considered in view of the notification dated 30.01.1996. The said issue has been considered by this Court in W.P.No.9988/2017 (Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and Others) decided on 15.03.2019 and therefore, he prays for a direction that the case of the petitioner be directed to be reconsidered.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the husband of the petitioner since had not completed 10 years on qualifying service as per

the Rules of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, therefore, her claim was rightly rejected.

Having heard rival submission of both the parties.

In the opinion of this Court, the identical issue has been dealt with by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari (supra) and later on relied in the

case of Bhama Bai Janghela vs. State of M.P. and Ors. in W.P.No. 8335/2021, the Co-ordinate Bench has held in para 7 as under:-

"7. Thus, taking into consideration the facts of the case, the reply filed by the respondents and the observation made by this Court in the case of Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari (supra) , I have no hesitation to say that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the issue involved in the present case has already been dealt with by this Court and it has been held that the qualifying service for the employees working in the Work Charged Establishment is six years instead of 10 years. Accordingly the order dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure P/8) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to grant family pension to the petitioner considering the service rendered by her husband in the Work Charged Establishment i.e. 09 years 09 months and 12 days as qualifying service. The said exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of 3 months from submitting certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the family pension of the petitioner is not settled within a period of three months, then the respondents shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent over the outstanding amount of family pension till the date of actual payment made to the petitioner."

Thus, in the light of Bhama Bai Janghela (supra), the case of the petitioner is required to be reconsidered. Accordingly the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 which is contained in Annexure P/9 is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner as regards the Family Pension to the petitioner in the light of judgment of this Court in the cases of Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari (supra) and Bhama Bai Janghela (supra), within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

The petitioner shall be at liberty to place the relevant documents including the above orders before the competent authority within above stipulated period.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(MANINDER S BHATTI) JUDGE sp SAVITRI PATEL 2022.07.01 13:27:28 +05'30'