Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 48 (MP)

State of M. P. v. Motilal

2013-01-07

M.C.GARG, SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2013
ORDER 1. This judgment shall dispose of writ appeal filed on behalf of the State of M.P., aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 7660/2003 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent Motilal now deceased claiming pension. 2.The learned Judge vide the impugned judgment has taken note of an amendment which was brought into force on 8.2.1980, reducing the eligibility for pension i.e., qualifying service of work charged employee only to 10 years as on 1.1.1974 or thereafter to be entitled to pension. 3. This writ petition came to be disposed of after the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal ceased to exist, even though the Original Application claiming the relief as claimed in the writ petition was filed before the State Administrative Tribunal registered vide O.A. No. 2241/2000. 4. It was the case of the respondent that the respondent was appointed as regular gardener on 1.5.1962 in PWD (B and R) Khargone. He retired on 31.5.1974 after reaching the age of superannuation at the age of 60 years. According to him, he completed more than 10 years of qualifying service for pension. He also claimed that as M.P. Gazette notification dated 8.2.1980 (Annexure A-4) filed alongwith the application he became entitled to pension but he was not granted pension despite various correspondence exchanged by him. It was in these circumstances, he filed the application. 5. According to the respondent/applicant, he having completed more than 10 years of regular service w.e.f. 1.5.1962 to 31.5.1974 as gardener in PWD (B and R) Khargone was entitled to pension. It would be appropriate to take note of the notification referred to by the appellant. 6. This notification has been issued by the Finance Department of State of M.P. in the Gazette published on 8.2.1980 in part 4 (C) thereof under Article 309 of the Constitution of India by Hon’ble Governor of the State. In this notification, the permanent employee viz-a-viz the work charged employee has been interpreted in paragraph 2(C) thereof which reads as under:- “2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a) ................. (b) ................. In this notification, the permanent employee viz-a-viz the work charged employee has been interpreted in paragraph 2(C) thereof which reads as under:- “2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires.- (a) ................. (b) ................. (c) “permanent employee” means a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974: [Provided that in respect of a contingency paid employee or a work charged employee who has attained the age of superannuation on or after the First April 1981, permanent employee means an employee who has completed 10 years of service on or after the 1st January 1974.] 7. A bare perusal of the Rule thereof goes to show that proviso was applicable reducing the eligibility for pension to 10 years from 15 years which was available to the work charged employees who attained the age of superannuation on or after 1.4.1981. Despite the admitted fact that the respondent had retired from service as on 31.5.1974 and thus was not is service as on 1.4.1981, the learned Single Judge granted the benefit of this amendment to the respondent. 8. It is this order which has been assailed before us by the State of Madhya Pradesh by way of present writ appeal. No doubt the writ appeal was filed belatedly, but delay in filing the appeal was condoned vide order passed by this Court on 4.8.2010. 9. Today, the case was listed for final hearing. Arguments were addressed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh by Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate. 10. The only contention on behalf of the appellant is that in the present case the eligibility for pension for work charged contingency paid employee as per the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 was 15 years of service or more on or after 1.1.1974. She also submitted that even though there was an amendment to the aforesaid Rule, reducing the qualifying service 10 years on or after 1.1.1974, which could have been applicable in the case of the respondent provided he would have been in service either on 1.4.1981 or thereafter, which was not the case. She also submitted that even though there was an amendment to the aforesaid Rule, reducing the qualifying service 10 years on or after 1.1.1974, which could have been applicable in the case of the respondent provided he would have been in service either on 1.4.1981 or thereafter, which was not the case. As such, it has been submitted that in this case, the respondent admittedly being a work charged employee was eligible for pension as on the date of retirement only if he has completed 15 years of service on or after 1.1.1974. However, this was not the case inasmuch as the respondent/employee retired from service on 31.5.1974. 11. In so far as the benefit of amendment is concerned, she contended that the said amendment was applicable only to an employee who was in service as on 1.4.1981 which was not the case. 12. Nobody has come forwarded to give counter view of the matter. Arguments have been addressed by Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh. Her submissions find support from the Rules. 13. The proviso added to the Rule 2 (c) makes it very clear that the amendment which reduces the qualifying service to 10 years for the purpose of pension in the case of (work charged and contingency paid employee) was applicable only in those cases where the employee was in service as on 1.4.1981 and had completed 10 years of service on or after 1.1.1974. The very fact that the respondent/employee retired on 31.5.1974, the benefit of the amended Rule was not available to him. 14. In view of the aforesaid, we find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in accordance with Rules. The interpretation of the amended Rule had come into force only w.e.f. 13.9.1982 and which was applicable only to those employees who were in service either on 1.4.1981 or thereafter subject to the condition that they had completed 10 years or more on or after 1.1.1974 which was not the case in the case of the respondent. 15. Hence, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23.11.2004 in W.P.No. 7660/2003 and consequently dismiss the writ petition with no order as to costs.