Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1150 (MP)

Rambhau Vishwakarma v. State Of M. P.

2011-10-01

R.S.JHA

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) HEARD. ( 2. ) RETURN having been filed, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties the matter is heard finally. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 25-5-2010, by which respondent No. 3 has considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension under the provisions of the M.P. (Work charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules of 1979'). ( 3. ) IT is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially engaged on muster roll and thereafter he became a work charged employee. IT is submitted that in view of the circular of the State Government (Annexure P-l), dated 1-12-1997 the petitioner should have been given status of a permanent employee under the provisions of the M.P. Work charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 and the entire services rendered by him since his initial engagement in the establishment of the respondent from 1-10-1979 as a labour should be counted and pension should be given to him. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Shrikrishan Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. 2003 (4) MPLJ 376 in support of his submission. ( 4. ) THE respondents, per contra, submits that the petitioner was a muster roll employee from the very beginning and continued to remain as muster roll employee till the very end of his service and in such circumstances, as a muster roll employee is not entitled to pension under the provisions of the Pension Rules of 1979, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the authorities is in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the previous petition filed by the petitioner, i.e., W.P. No. 14059/2007, which had been disposed of by order dated 22-3-2010 directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case for grant of pension by passing a speaking order after duly taking into consideration the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of Shrikrishan Shrivastava (supra). I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner was initially engaged as muster roll daily wager on 1-10-1979 and continued to be engaged in that capacity till 31-1-2008. It is also clear and undisputed that the petitioner was never engaged as a contingency or a work charged employee nor was he recruited in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the M.P. Work charged Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules of 1977 (here in after referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules of 1977'). In such circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of work charged employee or contingency paid employee under Rule 2 (h) and (b) respectively nor can he be categorized as a permanent employee under Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules of 1977 and, therefore, he is not entitled to any pension under the Pension Rules of 1979, which necessarily requires that a person should have rendered minimum period of qualifying service as a permanent employee before he becomes entitled to pension. ( 5. ) THE reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Shrikrishan Shrivastava (supra), is also misconceived in view of the fact that the law in this respect has subsequently been clarified and laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Shukla Vs. Stale of M.P. and others, 2011(3) M.P.H.T. 81 (FB) = 2011 (3) MPLJ 210 , after duly considering the case of Shrikrishan Shrivastava (supra), and it has been categorically held that the Pension Rules of 1979 can not be read in isolation and have to be read in consonance with and in harmony with the Recruitment Rules of 1977 and on doing so it is clear that only those persons who have been duly appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Recruitment Rules of 1977 are entitled to pension under the Pension Rules of 1979 on completion of the qualifying period of service in the following terms in Paras 12 and 24 :- "12.THE Pension Rules of 1979 are not independent Rules in regard to regulating the condition of service of work charged and contingency paid employees. THEre are specific rules, i.e.. THEre are specific rules, i.e.. Recruitment Rules of 1977 in regard to condition of service including appointment, qualification, procedure for recruitment and promotion, seniority list, conduct and procedure for imposing penalty.1 Hence, the Pension Rules of 1979 be read in consonance with the Recruitment Rules of 1977, because the object of Pension Rules, 1979 is to provide benefit of pension to certain class of employees and that has to be construed to employees who have been recruited in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment Rules of 1977, because if the Pension Rules of 1979 be read in isolation of independently then the Recruitment Rules of 1977 would become redundant. 24. On the basis of the above discussion, we hold in regard to the substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 3 that an employee is eligible to count his past service as qualifying service in accordance with Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979, if he was appointed in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment Rules of 1977. We further hold that an employee, who was not appointed in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment Rules framed by the concerned department, i.e., the Recruitment Rules of 1977, would not be eligible to count his past service as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension in accordance with the Pension Rules of 1979 and we answer the substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 3 accordingly." ( 6. ) IN the instant case, as the petitioner has admittedly not been appointed or engaged in accordance with the Recruitment Rules of 1977 and has throughout been a muster roll employee whose services cannot be said to be that of a permanent employee, as defined under the Pension Rules of 1979, in the opinion of this Court the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authorities in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra). The reliance placed by the petitioner on the circular of the State Government (Annexure P-1), dated 1-12-1997 is also misplaced and misconceived as that circular relates to and has been issued in respect of Gangman who are duly appointed in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Recruitment Rules of 1977 and does not relate to daily wages or muster roll employees like the petitioner and. therefore, no benefit thereunder can be claimed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present petition which is accordingly, dismissed.