Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramko Bai vs State Of M.P. on 29 November, 2022
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 29th OF NOVEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 3003 of 2012
BETWEEN:-
SMT. RAMKO BAI (DIED) THROUGH LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES:-
(I) MAHESH S/O LATE SHRI NIRPA, AGED 50
YEARS, OCCUPATION:- LABOUR, R/O KALI
MATA MANDIR KE PASS PICHORE, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (M.P.)
(II) DHANIRAM S/O LATE SHRI NIRPA, AGED 42
YEARS, OCCUPATION:- LABOUR, R/O KALI
MATA MANDIR KE PASS PICHORE, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (M.P.)
(III) JANKI S/O LATE SHRI NIRPA, AGED 36
YEARS, OCCUPATION:- LABOUR, R/O KALI
MATA MANDIR KE PASS PICHORE, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (M.P.)
(IV) AMOL SINGH S/O LATE SHRI NIRPA, AGED
30 YEARS, OCCUPATION:- LABOUR, R/O KALI
MATA MANDIR KE PASS PICHORE, DISTRICT
SHIVPURI (M.P.)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.S. RAGHUVANSHI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY PWD VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF ENGINEER NORTH PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT , GANDHI ROAD, GWALIOR,
DISTRICT GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT DIVISION SHIVPURI, DISTRICT
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION PICCHORE, DIST.
SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIJAY SUNDARAM - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the
rejection of her husband's claim for pension because of non-completion of
requisite service of 10 years.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that husband of the petitioner was
initially appointed on the post of Gangman after following due process by the
competent authority. Services of husband of the petitioner were regularized by
the State Government vide order dated 06/07/1998 (Annexure P/2) as per the
policy decision taken by the State Government for regularization of daily wage
employees and since appointment husband of the petitioner remained engaged
in regular activities like a regular employee.
A s per the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency paid
Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for brevity Pension Rules of 1979), an
employee is eligible to count his past services as qualifying service in
accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979, if he was appointed in
accordance with the provisions of Work charged and Contingency Paid
Employees Recruitment and Conditions Services Rules, 1977 (for brevity
Recruitment Rules of 1977). Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.12.2007
(Annexure P/1) whereby the initial service rendered by the husband of the
petitioner in contingency establishment has not been counted for the purpose of
pension as per Rules and due to which the husband of the petitioner has not
been extended the benefit of pension after retirement on the ground of not
completing the qualified period of 10 years for the purpose of pension.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said Pension Rules of
1979 stood amended from 30/1/1996. As per this amendment, on completion of
six years of service, which has been admitted in case of petitioner, the petitioner
i s entitled for the benefit of pension, therefore, respondents erred in not
considering the case of petitioner for grant of pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court
in the matter of Mamta Shukla (Smt.) Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., ILR
(2011) MP 1807 in support of his arguments.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer on the ground
that petitioner was not entitled for pension because he has not completed 10
years of service as regular employee and therefore, judgment passed in the case
of Mamta Shukla (supra) is not applicable in the present set of facts.
Heard.
In the case in hand, earlier as per the Pension Rules of 1979, the requisite
service to become entitled for pension was 10 years as regular employee but
later on in year 1996, the qualifying service has been reduced from 10 years to 6
years, therefore, the petitioner, who was regularized as well as retired on
31/12/2006, is covered by the said amendment. The amendment as caused in
Pension Rules of 1979 reads as under:-
I n the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and
Contingency paid Employees) Pension Rules,
1979, after sub-rule (2) of Rule, 6, and following
sub rule shall be added, namely:-
(3) on absorption of temporary employee without
interruption against any regular pensionable post,
the service rendered with effect from 1st January,
1974 onwards, if such service is of not less than
six years shall be counted for pension as if such
service was rendered in a regular post.
Considering the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Mamta Shukla (supra) as well as order dated 20/10/2016 passed by
coordinate Bench of this Court (at Principal Seat Jabalpur) in W.P. No.1205
/2006 (Ram Gopal Dubey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), this Court is of
the considered opinion that petitioner has completed more than six years of
service after being regularized w.e.f. 01/01/1997 till his retirement on 31/12/2006
and as per own admission of respondents, petitioner served for 42 years,
therefore, he is entitled for benefit of pension as per the Pension Rules of 1979.
Resultantly, impugned order dated 18/12/2007 (Annexure P/1) is hereby
set aside and respondents are directed to grant all consequential benefits to
petitioner including arrears and subsequent re-fixation in pension. Needful be
done within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order
so that a retired Class IV employee may not have to run from pillar to post for
his legitimate claims.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of with above directions.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Chandni
NEETU
SHASHAN
K
2022.11.30
18:23:13
+05'30'
