Madhya Pradesh High Court
Motilal Dhar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 May, 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 14 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 1126 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
MOTILAL DHAR DWIVEDI S/O SHRI M.P. DWIVEDI,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
WORKING AS AMEAN IN THE OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER CEUTEE CANAL DIVISION REWA G-5
BANSAGAR CHIRAHULA COLONY REWA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KRISHNA KUMAR AGNIHOTRI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
WATER RESOURCES MANTRALAYA, VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF WATER RESOURCE
D EPARTM EN T AM B ED KAR B H AWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER BANSAGAR DEPARTMENT
GANGA KACHHAR REWA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CANAL DIVISION
C E U T E E DIVISION REWA DISTRICT REWA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ANKIT AGRAWAL - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER (ORAL)
Petitioner is claiming counting of his past services as daily wagers from
1995 to 2011 for of computation of qualifying service for the purpose of grant
of pension.
2. Reliance is placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench of this High
Court in W.P. No.16878/2019 decided on 16/12/2010 wherein after quoting
provisions contained in Rule 12(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1976, Coordinate Bench of this High Court directed to settle claim of the
petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits and after considering the same in the
light of the law laid down by Division Bench of this High Court in the case of
The State of M.P. Vs. Smt. Ramrati Bai (W.A. No.682/2009 , directed to
settle the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of the order.
3. However, the fact of the matter is that Rule 3(p) of the Pension Rules,
1976 deals with qualifying service. It means the period between the date of
joining pensionable service under the State Government and the retirement
therefrom which shall be taken into account for the purpose of the pension and
gratuity admissible under these rules and includes the period which qualifies
under any other order or rule for the time being in force.
4. Thus, it is evident that qualifying service starts from the date when a
person joins a pensionable service. Joining of a daily wage employment being
not a pensionable service, it will not fall within the realm of qualifying service
and this vital aspect has been overlooked by the Coordinate Bench while
deciding the case in W.P. No.16878/2010 on 06/12/2010.
5. Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that isolated reference to Rule
12 (2) of the Pension Rules without reference to the definition of qualifying
service as given in Rule 3(p) is incomplete and admittedly petitioner being not a
person, who was appointed in 1995, to a pensionable service is not entitled to
count that period of daily wage engagement for any of the benefit of
pensionable service, therefore, it cannot be said that judgment rendered by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court will be a binding precedent for this Court
especially when it has not taken into consideration the definition of the
qualifying service as given in Rule 3(p) of the Pension Rules, 1976. In the
case of Chandrakanta Vs. State of M.P., 2007 (2) MPLJ 339 this Court
has held that the date of joining to a post on which the employee is first
appointed, either substantively or officiating or temporarily and takes over the
charge on that post and retired therefrom shall be, the period of service on
that post, and the date of taking over the charge till attaining the age of
superannuation be treated as qualifying service.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not provided copy of the order
passed by the Division Bench as referred to by the Coordinate Bench in case of
W.A. No.682/2009- Ramrati Bai (supra).
7. However, Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate, submits that the
order dated 09/11/2010 passed by the Division Bench of this High Court is
uploaded in the PDF form and the facts of that case are that respondent was
appointed purely on temporary basis against a Class-IV post in the District Jail,
Seoni vide order dated 20/08/1979 and in view of said facts, the said order has
been passed. In the present case, petitioner was not appointed on temporary
basis against a Class-IV or Class-III post in the establishment of respondents,
therefore, the ratio of the judgment in the case of Ramrati Bai (supra) has no
application to the facts of the present case. Therefore, the judgment rendered
i n W.A. No.682/2009- Ramrati Bai (supra) is distinguishable and the
judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.16878/2010 is not
applicable because the petitioner was not appointed against any post as a daily
wager as is evident from Annexure-P/1 wherein it is mentioned that he was a
daily wager. Thus, petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
8. Accordingly, this petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
