Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sarla Bisen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 1 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1684 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SARLA BISEN W/O LATE JHANAKLAL BISEN,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETD. DAIRY
ASSISTANT (CONTINGENCY) O/O VETY ASST. SURGEON
CBF GARHI BALAGHAT M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ATUL KUMAR RAI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY ANIMAL
HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING DEPT. VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR OF VETERINARY SERVICES
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND
DAIRYING DIRECTORATE DIRECTORATE
KAMDHENU BHAWAN, VESHALI NAGAR, KOTRA,
SULTANABAD, BHOPAL(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. JOINT DIRECTOR VETERINARY SERVICES
(ANIMLA HUSBANDRY AND DAIRYING
D E P A R T M E N T ) AADHARTAL DISTRICT-
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR VETERINARY SERVICES,
BALAGHAT M.P. JOINT DIRECTOR/AUTHORIZE
PENSION OFFICER, PENSION OFFICE,
JABALPUR(MP) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(STATE BY SHRI LOKESH JAIN - PANEL LAWYER)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AMIT JAIN
Signing time: 03-02-
2024 11:21:14
2
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was given
compassionate appointment in the year 1989 vide service book entry Annexure
P/1 but that appointment was on daily wage basis as the regular post was not
vacant. Thereafter, she was given appointment against a regular post vide order
dated 1.1.1999 in the work charged and contingency paid establishment,
therefore, the services rendered by her in the said establishment as daily wagers
are required to be added for the purpose of computation of qualifying service.
He places reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition
No.10974/2014 (Vedanti Prasad Tripathi versus State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others) decided on 12.1.2023 wherein placing reliance on the
decision of Vishnu Mutiya & Others versus State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others 2006 (1) M.P.L.J 23, the Full Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in
Paragraph No.9 has held as under:-
''9.Thus, we find that the entire controversy hinges on the
period that the employee has served prior to regularization as a work
charged employee and whether such services should be counted for
pension as already stated above. We find that the ratio laid down in
the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) would not be applicable in the
present case simply for the reason that the case of the
respondent/petitioner is fully covered by Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 6 as
amended vide notification dated 30th January, 1996 in the M.P
(Work Charged And Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules,
1979 vide FD No.B25/17/95/PW/C/IV, which provides for counting
of six years service rendered in the Work Charged Establishment
without interruption prior to regularization in the regular department."
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition deserves to and is allowed. It is
directed that the petitioner is entitled for counting of her past services under
Rule 6(3) of the M.P (Work Charged And Contingency Paid Employees)
Pension Rules, 1979 i.e. the services rendered by her prior to the regularization
has to be taken into consideration. Prior services of the petitioner be taken into
consideration for computation of the qualifying service and accordingly benefits
of pension be extended to her.
Let the aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order being passed today.
In above terms, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
