Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhama Bai Janghela on 7 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 1172 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (MECHANICAL) PUBLIC
HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SATPURA
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (MECHNICAL)
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
DIVISION CHUIKHADAN BEDI NAGAR, JABALPUR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (MECHANICAL)
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SUB DIVISION NEAR RAILWAY STATION
GHANSOUR ROAD, MANDLA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
5. THE DIVISIONAL PENSION OFFICER JABALPUR
DIVISION JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
6. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER DISTRICT
MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI B. D. SINGH - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
AND
BHAMA BAI JANGHELA W/O LATE SHIR BEJULLA
JANGHELA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE R/O SHANTI NAGAR BIJHIYA MANDLA,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 2/13/2024
5:24:06 PM
2
DISTRICT MANDLA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURENDRA VERMA - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
allowing Writ Petition No.8335 of 2021, the respondents/State are in appeal.
2. It was the case of the writ petitioner that her husband was initially inducted
in the respondent/department in the month of April, 1986 and thereafter vide
order dated 28.07.2004 he was absorbed in the Work Charged Establishment.
During service, he died on 09.12.2013. After death of her husband, the
petitioner applied for grant of family pension before the competent authority.
When no action was taken, she preferred a writ petition being W.P.No.722 of
2020 which was decided vide order dated 16.02.2021 directing the authorities to
consider the claim of the petitioner for extending the benefit of family pension in
accordance with law. Thereafter, the representation filed by the petitioner has
been rejected by the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 on the ground that the
husband of the petitioner had completed 9 years, 9 months and 12 days in the
Work Charged Establishment whereas for grant of family pension, the required
qualifying service is minimum 10 years and as such family pension cannot be
granted to the petitioner.
3. It is argued that a similar issue cropped up for consideration before this
Court in the case of Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari vs. State of M.P. and others ,
W.P.No.9988 of 2017 decided on 15.03.2019 and also in the case of Rahisha
Begum vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 332 wherein
this court has considered the provisions of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged
and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and also took note of
the notification dated 30.10.1996 whereby the qualifying service under the
Pension Rules, 1979 was reduced from 10 years to 6 years as far as the case of
a Work Charged Contingency Paid Employee is concerned.
4. The State have assailed the order on the ground that minimum qualifying
service for a Work Charged Contingency Paid Employee to be entitled for
pension is 10 years in terms of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.
5. Record indicates that the petitioner's husband had worked under the Work
Charged Establishment for 9 years 9 months and 12 days which could not be
disputed by the State because they themselves have rejected the claim of the
petitioner on this ground. The judgment passed in the case of Vishwanath
Prasad Tiwari (supra) could not be disputed by the counsel appearing for the
State, wherein, it is held as under:
"9. In view of the above, when the Division Bench of this Court has
already observed the qualifying service for a work charged
contingency employee is six years for granting him pension as per the
provisions of Pension Rules, 1979, the order impugned dated
14.03.2014 (Annexure- P/6) is accordingly quashed directing the
respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of
pension treating the qualifying service of six years instead of ten
years and if the petitioner is otherwise entitled and has completed the
requisite qualifying service in a Work Charged Contingency
Establishment then he may be granted pension accordingly. Since the
coordinate Bench has also granted interest at the rate of 12% from the
due date till the date of realization relying upon the decision of the
Supreme court in the case of Union of India vs. S.S. Sandhawalia
(1994) 2 SCC 240, the petitioner is also found entitled to get the
interest at the same rate from the due date till the date of realization.
The respondents are therefore, directed to carry out and complete the
exercise of granting pension as well as interest to the petitioner within
a period of three months from the date of submitting the certified copy
of the order."
6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Smt. Kalyani Tiwari, W.A.No. 821 of 2017 vide order dated 25.02.2019
has considered the notification dated 31.01.1996 and has observed that
qualifying service for a Worked Charged Contingency Paid Employee is six
years for granting him pension as per Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. The aforesaid aspect could
not be disputed by the counsel appearing for the State. Under these
circumstances, the writ court has rightly analyzed all the aspects of the matter
and directed for grant of family pension to the petitioner. Hence, no relief can
be extended to the appellants/State. The order passed by the writ court is just
and proper, which does not call for any interference in the present writ appeal.
7. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
sj
