Madhya Pradesh High Court
K.C. Gangle vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 August, 2023
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 22532 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
K.C. GANGLE S/O LATE SHRI BITTHAL JI GANGLE,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED TIME
KEEPER VILLAGE KHAMLAYE, POST-PIPALGAON,
TAHSIL KASRAWAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI CHANDRAKANT VERMA, LEARNED COUNSEL)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCES
D E PA R T M E N T TULSI NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER NARMADA TAPTI KACHHAR
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT OLD
PALASIYA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE
DEPARTM ENT DIVISION KHARGONE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES
SUB DIVISION NO. 2 KASRAWAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
6. DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER COLLECTORATE
PREMISES (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(MS. GEETANJALI CHAURASIA, LEARNED GA FOR THE
RESPONDENTS/STATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 04-08-2023
17:08:59
2
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner is seeking a direction for payment of regular pension and
arrears of pension with interest of 6% per annum.
2. The petitioner was appointed initially on 01.03.1983 on the post of
Time Keeper as Daily Wager. He was regularised we.f. 15.06.2010 in the
establishment of Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employee by the
respondent No. 3 vide order dated 15.06.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner
had completed more than 15 years continuous services before the respondents
without any break on or before 01.01.1974 and, therefore, as per the the
provisions of M.P. (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employee) Pension
Rules, 1979 (hereinafter called the Pension Rules, 1979), the petitioner is
entitled for pension.
3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled
for regular pension in view of non-completing actual 10 years of service. It is
submitted that as per Circular dated 13.04.2005, Contributory Pension Scheme
(CPF) was enforced and as per the said scheme, the persons, who are
appointed on 01.01.2005 or thereafter are entitled for contributory pension and
not the regular pension.
4. Per contra, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
completed 10 years of service in Work Charged Establishment and, therefore,
as per the Rules of 1979, he is entitled for pension. Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1979
reads as under:-
"Permanent Employee" the expression which finds mention in Rule 4
and 6 is as defined under Rule 2 (c):
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
"Permanent employee" means a contingency paid
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 04-08-2023
17:08:59
"Permanent employee" means a contingency paid
employee or a work charged employee who has
completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the
1st January, 1974.
Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Shrikrishna
Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and ors (supra) observed.
"5- As per amendment in the rules known as Madhya
Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid
Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, in Rule 6(3) it is
provided that if a temporary employee who has served
uninterruptedly and is regularised on a regular pensionable
post, his services after 1st January 1974, which shall not
be less than six years, shall be counted for pension and
not from the date when he was regularised. In the
aforesaid pension rules of 1979, Rule 6 relates to
commencement of qualifying service. It is provided that
for calculating qualifying service of a permanent
employee, who retires as such, the service rendered w.e.f.
1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted. It is further
provided that on absorption of a permanent employee
without interruption against any regular pensionable post,
the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1959
onwards shall be counted for pension as if such service
was rendered in a regular post and thereafter sub-rule 3
was introduced vide notification dated 30th January 1996
and it is provided that any temporary employee, who has
been served uninterruptedly and on his absorption on
regular pensionable post after 1st January 1974 the period
shall be counted towards pension.
6- Considering Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation
Dep artment W o r k charged and Contingency Paid
Employees Recruitment and Conditions Rules. It is clear
that the petitioner was eligible to be regularised on the post
on completion of five years service as a contingency paid
employee. Therefore, we hold that for the purposes of
pension his period of service shall be counted from
1.12.1982 onwards till the date of his retirement. Pension
i s allowed. Respondents are directed to calculate the
pension of petitioner treating him to be in service on the
pensionable post w.e.f. 1.12.1982."
Similarly in Samim Begam vs. State of M.P. and ors:
Signature Not Verified
2006(4) MPLJ 112, it has been held:
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 04-08-2023
17:08:59
"7- In view of the Rule 6(2) of the Rules of 1979, when
once a person is absorbed in a regular pensionable post,
the service rendered in work-charged establishment, has to
be counted as qualifying service. This Court in series or
cases has held that the employee who was in the work-
charged establishment will fall in the definition of Work-
charged Contingency Paid Employee and his case will be
covered by The M.P. Work-Charged Contingency Paid
Employee Rules, 1979 and, therefore, he is entitled for
pension, gratuity as per Rules. This Court in W.P. No.
1569/94, M.P. Dubey vs. M.P.E.B. Directed the period of
work-charged to be counted as pensionable period under
the Rule 42 of the Rules of 1976. The Division Bench
affirmed the said finding in an L.P.A. No. 229/98 on
20.11.1998. The decision of the Division Bench was
affirmed by the Apex Court."
5. Learned Panel Lawyer in his turn submits that petitioner is not entitled
to pension as he has not put in ten years of qualifying service. However, when
judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Samim Begum Vs. State
of M.P. & others 2006 (4) M.P.L.J. 112 is taken into consideration which
has also considered the law laid down in the case of M.P. Dubey Vs.
M.P.E.B. so also the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Shrikrishna
Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and others 2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 376 , then the
view of the Division Benches that sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 that
services rendered by the daily wager prior to his retirement in the regular work
charge establishment, if the same is not less than six years when rendered w.e.f.
1/11/1974 onwards, is to be counted for the purpose of pension.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into
consideration that the services of the petitioner in Work Charged Establishment
were regularised by Annexure P/2 w.e.f. 15.06.2010 and he retired on
31.12.2020, thus, he had completed 10 years of service in the Work Charged
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 04-08-2023
17:08:59
and Contingency Paid Establishment.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is entitled for regular pension
under the Rules of 1979. His claims shall be settled and paid to him along with
6% interest within one month from the date of communication of the order.
8. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed off.
Cc as per rules.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 04-08-2023
17:08:59
