Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surja Devi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. on 15 February, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5331 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SURJA DEVI W/O SHRI KISHANLAL SHRIVASTAVA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE
WARD NO. 4 NEAR BADA MANDIR, LAHAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLBH BHABHAN
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BHIND (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SOHIT MISHRA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Present petition is preferred by the petitioner being crestfallen by the
rejection of his claim for pension because of non-completion of requisite
service of 10 years.
Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner's husband/deceased
employee was initially appointed on the post of Chowkidar after following due
process by the competent authority. Services of petitioner were regularized by
the State Government vide order dated 03/06/1994 (Annexure P/2) as per the
policy decision taken by the State Government for regularization of daily wage
employees and since appointment petitioner remained engaged in regular
activities like a regular employee.
A s per the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency paid
Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for brevity Pension Rules of 1979), an
employee is eligible to count his past services as qualifying service in
accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979, if he was appointed in
accordance with the provisions of Work charged and Contingency Paid
Employees Recruitment and Conditions Services Rules, 1977 (for brevity
Recruitment Rules of 1977). Petitioner is aggrieved by the arbitrary action of
the respondents while not granting the benefit of pension to the petitioner inspite
of duly entitlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner's husband/deceased has completed approx 10 years service in
regular establishment on the post of Chowkidar and therefore, she is entitled for
the pension.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the said Pension Rules of
1979 stood amended from 30/1/1996. As per this amendment, on completion of
six years of service, which has been admitted in case of petitioner's husband,
the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of pension, therefore, respondents erred
in not considering the case of petitioner for grant of pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court
in the matter of Mamta Shukla (Smt.) Vs. State of M.P. & Ors., ILR
(2011) MP 1807 and Netram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in
2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 1545 in support of his arguments.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer on the ground
that petitioner was not entitled for pension because her husband has not
completed 10 years of service as regular employee and therefore, judgment
passed in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) is not applicable in the present
set of facts.
Heard.
In the case in hand, earlier as per the Pension Rules of 1979, the requisite
service to become entitled for pension was 10 years as regular employee but
later on in year 1996, the qualifying service has been reduced from 10 years to 6
years, therefore, the petitioner's husband, who was regularized as well as
expired on 19.08.2003, is covered by the said amendment. The amendment as
caused in Pension Rules of 1979 reads as under:-
I n the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and
Contingency paid Employees) Pension Rules,
1979, after sub-rule (2) of Rule, 6, and following
sub rule shall be added, namely:-
(3) on absorption of temporary employee without
interruption against any regular pensionable post,
the service rendered with effect from 1st January,
1974 onwards, if such service is of not less than
six years shall be counted for pension as if such
service was rendered in a regular post.
Considering the judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Mamta Shukla (supra), Netram Sahu (supra) and order dated
20/10/2016 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court (at Principal Seat
Jabalpur) in W.P. No.1205 /2006 (Ram Gopal Dubey Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh), this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner's husband has
completed more than six years of service after being regularized w.e.f.
03.06.1994 till his death on 19.08.2003 and as per own admission of
respondents, petitioner's husband served for more than nine years, therefore,
the petitioner is entitled for benefit of pension as per the Pension Rules of 1979.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are
directed to grant all consequential benefits to petitioner including arrears and
subsequent re-fixation in pension. Needful be done within two months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order so that a retired employee may
not have to run from pillar to post for his legitimate claims.
Petition stands allowed and disposed of with above directions.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
