Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gyanchand Batham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
ON THE 13 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 594 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
GYANCHAND BATHAM S/O SHRI KASIRAM BATHAM,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RET. GOVT.
VIVEKANAND COLONY GANESHPURA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF M.P., VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ENGINEER IN CHIEF, WATER RESOURCES
D EPARTM EN T, NARMADA BHAWAN, TULSI
NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF ENGINEER, YAMUNA KACHHAR, WATER
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT THATIPUR, GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES
DEPARTM ENT, SUB DIVISION NO.2 MORENA,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAVINDRA DIXIT - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.10.2020 passed by Chief
Engineer, Water Resources Department, Thatipur, Gwalior whereby the
representation of petitioner for counting his past services before regularization
for the purpose of pension was rejected on the ground that earlier petitioner was
working as Daily Wage Employee in work charged contingency establishment
and therefore, his past services could not be counted for the purpose of
pension.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a similar issue came up for
consideration before Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra Vs.
State of M.P. & Others. in Writ Petition No.5133/2016 which was decided on
27.7.2016 with directions to extend the benefit to the petitioner therein on the
same terms and similar directions as were issued by Division Bench in Writ
Appeal No.757/2007 (Rahisha Begum Vs. State of M.P. & Others). The said
order was challenged by the State in Writ Appeal No.366/2017 which was
decided by the order dated 1.9.2017 and after considering the
objections/arguments raised by the State that judgment delivered by Full Bench
in the matter of Mamta Shukla Vs. State of M.P., 2011 (3) MPLJ 210 is
applicable and according to which Member of work charged establishment is
not entitled for the benefit of counting his prior service for the purpose of
pension. However, after considering the arguments advanced by State, Division
Bench relied on the judgment of Smt. Rahisha Begum held that even a
contingency paid employee or work charged employee is entitled for the benefit
of consideration of past service which he discharged as daily wager before
regularization for the purpose of pension. The order passed by the Division
Bench was challenged before Supreme Court also by preferring SLP(Civil)
Diary No.16700/2018 which was dismissed by order dated 18.5.2018 and
consequently order in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra(Supra) has attained
finality. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that judgment passed in
the matter of Laxmikant Mishra is squarely applicable to the present case.
Therefore, similar relief be extended to the present petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/State
submits that petitioner was not appointed by following recruitment process and
his appointment was in work charge contingency paid establishment and
therefore he is not entitled for extending the benefit of considering his prior
service for the purpose of calculation of pension. He relied on the circular
issued by Finance Department, State of M.P. dated 6.1.2013 wherein it was
directed that if work charged employee has worked for more than 10 years as
daily wager then he will be deemed as permanent employee for the purpose of
pension. He further relied on the judgment of Smt. Mamta Shukla Vs. State of
M.P., 2011 (3) MPLJ 210 and argued that petitioner cannot be extended the
benefit of considering his past services for the purpose of calculation of
pension. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that
respondent/State is unnecessary avoiding to extend the benefit to the petitioner
whereas, the other similarly situated employees of the department have been
extended the benefit after relying upon the judgment passed in the matter of
Laxmikant Mishra (Supra). He has pointed out from the available order dated
24.2.2020(Annexure P-7) wherein similar benefit was extended to the similar
situated employee of the same department after considering the order passed in
the matter of Laxmikant Mishra(Supra) and SLP(Civil) Diary No.16700/2018
was also mentioned in the order. However, petitioner has not been extended the
benefit of the same order.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that
controversy has already been settled in the matter of Rahisha Begum Vs. State
of M.P. and Others, 2010 (4) MPLJ 332 and same is relied in the matter of
Laxmikant Mishra(Supra) after considering the judgment of Full Bench passed
in the matter of Mamta Shukla (Supra). Judgment in the matter of Laxmikant
Mishra (Supra) has attained finality. It has travelled up to Apex Court.
Therefore, it is no more res-integra that a daily wager employee and contingency
paid daily wager or work charge contingency paid employee is also entitled for
the benefit of counting of his past service at the time of calculation of pension.
Consequently, the present petition is allowed.
6. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of past service to the
petitioner for the purpose of calculation of pension. Terms and directions
issued in the matter of Rahisha Begum, 2010 (4) MPLJ 332 and judgment of
Laxmikant Mishra(Supra) shall be applicable to the case of petitioner as mutatis
mutandis.
7. Let necessary formalities be completed within a period of three
months.
8. With the aforesaid, the the present petition stands disposed of.
(VINAY SARAF)
JUDGE
Rohit
