Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Muneendra Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
WP No. 27044 of 2022
(SHRI MUNEENDRA PRASAD PANDEY AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS)
Dated : 23-02-2024
Shri Bramha Nand Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Amit Mishra - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the Full Bench
decision of this Court in Mamta Shukla Vs. The State of M.P. and Others,
2011(3) MPLJ 210.
According to the Court, this decision is not applicable to the facts and
circumstance of the case. This decision is in regard to the Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees and the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) was
examined in the light of the provisions contained in M.P. (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 with specific reference to
Rules 3 and 6.
In the present case, fact of the matter is that petitioners were appointed as
a daily wager vide Annexure P-1 which is not the appointment order but a
certificate issued by the Executive Engineer showing Muneendra Prasad Pandey
s/o Mahesh Prasad Pandey to be working as Surveyor on daily wages.
Annexure P-3 dated 10.06.2004 is the regularization order which has been
passed in terms of the various GAD circulars whereby the petitioners were
regularized on the post of Sub Engineer in the regular establishment of the
department, therefore, the petitioners are required to show that when a person is
regularized in the regular establishment of the department, then his case will still
be governed by the provisions contained in the M.P. (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.
Learned counsel for the petitioners now submits that one Shri Raghuveer
Prasad Tiwari who retired as Assistant Grade III from the Office of Executive
Engineer Water Resources Division Jaora, his services as a daily wager from
17.06.1980 to 10.04.1990 when he worked as a copyist were computed for the
purpose of qualifying service noting that as per GAD orders dated 3.05.2017,
there is a provision for grant of pension to the permanently classified
employees.
It is submitted that order Annexure P-10/B passed in case of (Netram
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Ors.) in W.P. No.5135/2016 is also to the
same effect.
However, the fact of the matter is that the case of Mamta Shukla
(supra) is in regard to persons appointed in Work Charged and Contingency
Paid Employees Establishment and not in Regular Establishment.
There are two different sets of Rules applicable, ones who are regularized
in Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Establishment are governed
by M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules,
1979 whereas those who are regularized in the regular establishment are to be
governed by M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976.
As far as narration in Annexure P-16 is concerned i.e. illegal inasmuch as
there is no provision for regularization of services of a permanently classified
employees in regard to which law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray and others (2017) 3 SCC
436 is crystal clear that permanent classification does not make them a member
of regular establishment and, thus on the basis of an incorrect and illegal order
passed by the Chief Engineer Shri S.D. Shrivastava will not give any equitable
benefit to do the petitioners.
Thus, petitioners being a daily wager are not entitled to count his services
as a daily wager for the purposes of counting of the qualifying service in trems
of the judgment of Coordinate Bench in case Chandrakanta w/o Manaklalji
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2007)(2) MPLJ 339.
Similar matter has been referred to a Larger Bench by this Court in W.P.
3544/2024, this matter be also clubbed for hearing in that behalf.
Shri Deepak Awasthi, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist
the Court in this behalf.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
MTK
