Dayaram Pal vs State Of M.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 15748 MP

                                  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. 7088 of 2012

        BETWEEN:-
        SHRI DAYARAM PAL S/O TULSIPAL, AGED
        ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED R/O
        KALI MATA MANDIR, MAHADEV MANDIR
        PICHHORE, SHIPVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI S.S. RAGHUVANSHI - ADVOCATE)

        AND
        1 - THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH THE
        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
        DEPARTMENT, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL,
        (MADHYA PRADESH)
        2 - CHIEF ENGINEER (NORTH) P.W.D., GANDHI
        ROAD,     GWALIOR,    DISTRICT    GWALIOR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)
        3 - EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D. DIVISION
        SHIVPURI, DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
        PRADESH)
        4-     SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER P.W.D. SUB
        DIVISION    PICHHORE,    DISTRCIT SHIVPURI
        (MADHYA PRADESH)
        5 - DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER SHIVPURI,
        DISTRICT SHIVPURI (M.P.)

                                                          .....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 his claim for pension because of non-completion of requisite service of 10 years.

Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Gangman (Labor) after following due process by the competent authority. Services of petitioner were regularized by the State Government vide order dated 01/01/1996 (Annexure P/1) as per the policy decision taken by the State Government for regularization of daily wage employees and since appointment 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 the arbitrary action of the respondents while not granting the benefit of pension to the petitioner inspite of duly entitlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed 6 years and 11 months service on the regular post and about 30 years service on the Daily Wager post and therefore, he is entitled for the 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 30/11/2002, 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. 01/01/1996 till his retirement on 30/11/2002

and as per own admission of respondents, petitioner served for six years eleven months, therefore, he is entitled for benefit of pension as per the Pension Rules of 1979.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the 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 SHASHANK 2022.11.30 18:15:10 +05'30'