Jagdish Ram Brahman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4059 MP

                                                                         1
                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                        AT JABALPUR
                                                                  BEFORE
                                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                            ON THE 15 th OF MARCH, 2023
                                                          WRIT PETITION No. 7427 of 2018

                                       BETWEEN:-
                                       JAGDISH RAM BRAHMAN S/O LATE SHRI BALDEO
                                       RAM    BRAHMAN,     AGED   ABOUT 62 YEARS,
                                       OCCUPATION: RETD. STHAI KARMI (PERMANENT
                                       KARMI) FROM THE FOREST OFFICE RANGE SIDHI,
                                       DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                                       (BY SHRI PRABHAKAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                                       AND
                                       1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR
                                             PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT
                                             VALLABH    BHAWAN,   BHOPAL   (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                       2.    CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST
                                             DEPARTMENT VAN BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                       3.    DIVISIONAL        FOREST    OFFICER        FOREST
                                             D E PA R T M E N T DISTRICT   SIDHI      (MADHYA
                                             PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                       (BY SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)

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

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who admittedly started his Signature Not Verified

service career as a daily wager under the respondents - Forest department on SAN

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2023.03.15 19:36:23 IST 01.01.1986, the benefit of pension subsequent to extension of benefit of

classification in pursuance of the policy dated 07.10.2016 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh.

Petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Mohammad Sadiq, (2011) 2 MPHT 113.

Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents- State, in his turn, submits that petitioner was not a member of either work charged establishment or contingency paid establishment, governed by the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and therefore, case of the petitioner being distinguishable and there

being no provision for payment of pension to a daily wager subsequent to his classification under the scheme of the General Administration Department dated 07.10.2016, claim is not maintainable and petition be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is an admitted fact that petitioner was engaged as a daily wager in the forest department. He was not engaged in the work charged contingency establishment. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner's services were never regularized in terms of the Fundamental Rules. He was only classified as permanent employee in terms of GAD circular dated 07.10.2016. This GAD circular only talks of payment of minimum wages. It also talks of payment of gratuity at a particular rate as mentioned in clause 1.7. It does make mention of any pensionery benefit admissible to the petitoner.

As far as judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Mohammad Sadiq (supra) is concerned, facts of that case are different. Respondent therein Signature Not Verified SAN

was regularized prior to attaining the age of superannuation. He was appointed Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2023.03.15 19:36:23 IST

as a regular Gangman w.e.f. 31.12.2002. Since he had completed certain years

of service, therefore, it was held that he being a member of the work charged and contingency paid establishment, was entitled to be governed by the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and accordingly, applying those provisions, Division Bench had dismissed the claim of the State against the award of grant of pension to the workman-respondent therein.

However, in the present case, neither petitioner was a member of work charged establishment nor his services were ever regularized in the said establishment so to make him eligible for application of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.

In absence of any rules being shown under which petitioner would have been eligible for pension, petition is devoid of merits, inasmuch as, judgment of the Division Bench in Mohammad Sadiq (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In view of above, petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE pp

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by PUSHPENDRA PATEL Date: 2023.03.15 19:36:23 IST