Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1055 (MP)

Shrikrishan Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2003-09-03

S.S.JHA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2003
JUDGMENT The petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 1.12.1977. He continued to work full time on monthly basis and his pay was charged to "office contingency". He was regularised on the post of Amin vide order dated 11.5.1994. Petitioner petered on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June 2000. After retirement petitioner applied for grant of pension. Pension was rejected on the ground that petitioner has not completed qualifying service to receive the pension. Petitioner filed an application before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of State Government refusing to sanction the pension. Tribunal held that after regularisation of petitioner in the year 1994, his services started from the year 1994 and when a member of contingency and work charged employee, who has completed at least six years service is regularised without any break on a pensionable post, then his services rendered in work charged and contingency paid services shall be counted as qualifying service for pension. Tribunal held that since six years have not been completed by the petitioner after regularisation, he is not eligible for pension. Rules known as Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977 came into force w.e.f. 1st January, 1974. Rule 4 relates to constitution of the service, which shall consist of the persons, who had completed at least one year service as work charged employees or contingency paid employee on 1.1.1974 and was holding the post specified in the schedule and has not completed the age of superannuation prescribed for employees holding comparable class of posts in the regular employment of the State Government and second category consisted of work charged or contingency paid employees recruited in service after 1st January, 1973 but before commencement of these rules and third category was of those employees, who were engaged after commencement of the rules, according to the provisions of these rules on completion of five years service. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 1.12.1977, who was drawing his wages on monthly basis and his pay was charged to "office contingency". Respondents in their return filed before the Tribunal have mentioned that services rendered on contingency paid post cannot be reckoned with the service rendered on a civil post. Thus, ·respondents have admitted that petitioner has rendered service on a contingency paid post. Respondents in their return filed before the Tribunal have mentioned that services rendered on contingency paid post cannot be reckoned with the service rendered on a civil post. Thus, ·respondents have admitted that petitioner has rendered service on a contingency paid post. In the said view of admission, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the rules of 1977 and he was eligible to be recruited to the service on completion of five years service. As per amendment in the rules known as Madhya Pradesh (Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, in Rule 6(3) it is provided that if a temporary employee who has served uninterruptedly and is regularised on a regular pensionable post, his services after 1st January 1974, which shall not be less than six years, shall be counted for pension and not from the date when he was regularised. In the aforesaid Pension Rules of 1979, Rule 6 relates to commencement of qualifying service. It is provided that for calculating qualifying service of a permanent employee, who retires as such, the service rendered w.e.f. 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted. It is further provided that on absorption of a permanent employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post and thereafter sub-rule 3 was introduced vide notification dated 30th January 1996 and it is provided that any temporary employee, who has been served uninterruptedly and on his absorption on regular pensionable post after 1st January 1974 the period shall be counted towards pension. Considering Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, it is clear that petitioner was eligible to be regularised on the post on completion of five years service as a contingency paid employee. Therefore, we hold that for the purposes of pension his period of service shall be counted from 1.12.1982 onwards till the date of his retirement. Petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to calculate the pension of petitioner treating him to be in service on the pensionable post w.e.f. 1.12.1982. Petition succeeds and is allowed. Order passed by the Tribunal Annexure P-6 in O.A. 996/2001 dated 11.11.2002 is quashed.