Madhya Pradesh High Court
Susheel Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 April, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 21 st OF APRIL, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 14833 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SUSHEEL KUMAR DWIVEDI S/O SHRI RAMBHUVAN
DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED SAHAYAK TURNER BHANDAR EVAM
KARMSHALA SUB DIVISION NO.3 LIGHT MACHINERY
EVAM VIDYUT YANTRIKI DIVISION DEOLOND DISTT.
SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SUDHANSHU KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY WRD VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTMENT BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER, VIDYUT YANTRIKI JAL
SANSADHAN VIBHAG BANDH SURAKSHA
B HAWAN LINK ROAD NO. 2, TULSI NAGAR,
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LIGHT MACHIENERY
EVAM VIDYUT YANTRIKI DIVISION DEOLOND,
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. S . D . O . , WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
BHANDAR EVAM KARMSHALA UPSAMBHAG
KRAMANK 3 SUBDIVISION NO. 3, DEOLOND
DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
6. DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER, DIVISION REWA
SAN
DISTRICT REWA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
.....RESPONDENTS
Date: 2023.04.21 20:10:00 IST
2
(BY SHRI SHIV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed for quashing the pension calculation sheet
issued by respondent No. 4 and to seek direction against the respondents for
grant of pension and arrears there of alongwith interest. It is the case of the
petitioner he was initially engaged as daily wager from contingency fund with
effect from 03/02/1984 after about 13 years of continuous service he was
registered per order dated 31/07/1997 in the regular scale of pay of Rs. 825-
1220 which is revised from time to time. On attaining the age of superannuation
was retired with effect from 31-08-2021 after completion of more than six years
of the regular service.
On submitting the representations claim with respect to him was rejected
because he has not completed the minimum ten years of service required for the
purpose of grant of pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the M.P. Work
Charged and Contingency paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 the period of
service rendered by him during 1978 till regulations 18-01-95 is required to be
counted for the purpose of pension.
Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case Smt.
Sagra Vs. State or M.P. and others in W.P. No. 3008/2003, which was
decided in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 1995 Suppl. (3)
Signature Not Verified
SAN SCC 67, however it is urged that the period of service rendered by the
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.04.21 20:10:00 IST petitioner on daily wages from contingency fund deserves to be counted for the
purpose of pension as service. However, prayer is made to allow the petition
and to direct the respondents to finalize the pension case of the petitioner along
with other retiral dues and pay arrears thereof along with interest.
Respondents have filed their return, wherein it is set forth that petitioner is
not entitled for the pension because he has not completed ten years of the
regular service, as required under the rules, therefore the order of rejection of
the pension case has rightly been passed.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the
record. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the question involved in
the present case has already been decided by this Court in the case of Smt.
Sagra (supra) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Ram Kumar Agrawal (supra) so also taking note of the Pension Rules
applicable to the work charged contingency paid employees, whereby it is
apparent that the period of service rendered by the daily wager receiving salary
from the contingency find is required to be counted for the purpose of pension.
In view of the foregoing discussion this petition is allowed. Respondents
are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of the pension and to
finalize the same within a period of four months from the date of
communication of this order. It is further directed that the arrears of the
pension be realized to the petitioner within one month alongwith the interest as
permissible under the law preferable @ 6% per annum.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.04.21 20:10:00 IST
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
vy
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR
Date: 2023.04.21 20:10:00 IST
