Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 568 (MP)

Bhagirath v. Public Works Department

2016-07-15

S.C.SHARMA

body2016
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present writ petition claiming pension and pensionary dues. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he was appointed on 25.5.1972 as a Gangman in the Public Works Department and has attained the age of superannuation on 30.4.2014 on completion of 62 years of age. It has been stated that he has put in 42 years of service in the Public Works Department as Gangman. 3. The petitioner's contention is that by virtue of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harinarayan Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.2726/2011, he is also entitled for grant of pension and other dues. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the judgment delivered by this Court was subjected to judicial scrutiny and the apex Court has dismissed the SLP preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 5.4.2013. The judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harinarayan Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.2726/2011 reads as under :- “This is a letter petition in which this Court vide order dated 8.4.2011 has appointed Shri V.K. Patwari, Advocate to assist the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Gangman in the Public Works Department in March 1957 and had retired on 31.12.1997 after serving the department for more than 40 years but he has not been granted the pensionary benefits whereas his juniors have been extended the said benefit. He has stated that he is a poor, handicapped old and ailing retired employee with no support. A reply has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner had retired on 31.12.1997 whereas in terms of the Circular (Annexure R-1) dated 1.12.1997, the Gangmen have been regularised with effect from 1.1.1998, but, the petitioner could not be regularised as he had retired in the meanwhile. The petitioner has not completed minimum qualifying service, therefore, in terms of rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, he is not eligible for the grant of pension and accordingly, he has been paid the gratuity amount as permissible in law. The petitioner has not completed minimum qualifying service, therefore, in terms of rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, he is not eligible for the grant of pension and accordingly, he has been paid the gratuity amount as permissible in law. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. and others v. Mohammad Sadiq, reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ 367 , wherein in similar circumstances, the relief has been granted. He has further submitted that the petitioner cannot be denied the said benefit since the similarly situated employee in the matter of Mohammed Sadiq (supra), has been granted the relief. Learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefit since he has not completed the minimum ten years of regular service in the Work Charge Establishment. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The respondents in their reply have not disputed the fact that the petitioner was employed as Gang Man in the Public Works Department since the year 1957. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner had retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation on 31.12.1997. Thus, undisputedly the petitioner has served the respondents for more than 40 years. It is also worth nothing that the circular dated 1.12.1997, in respect of regularisation of Gangman, was issued when the petitioner was working as gangman, but he was not given the benefit of the said circular without any justifiable reason. In terms of this circular the petitioner is to be treated as a regular Gangman w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In the matter of Mohammed Sadiq (supra), the concerned employee was appointed as daily wager in the year 1960 and was regularised on 1.1.1996 and had retired on 31.12.2002 and he was denied the benefit of pension on the same ground raising the plea that he had not completed the minimum period of qualifying service of ten years. This Court, after taking note of the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1979, held thus :- 10. This Court, after taking note of the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1979, held thus :- 10. On taking into consideration rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules of 1979, it is luminously clear that a person can be said to be a permanent employee who has completed 15 years of service or more on or after 1st January, 1974 as contingency paid or a work charged employee. Since undisputedly the petitioner was appointed as daily wager in the year 1960, hence in the year 1975 he has completed 15 years of his service. No doubt he was regularized vide Annexure R-2 on 1.1.1996, but before he was regularized he already qualified the qualifying service for the grant of pension. It is not at all in dispute that the qualifying service of 10 years as envisaged in the proviso to definition clause of permanent employee stated in rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules of 1979, has been reduced to six years vide notification dated 30th January, 1996. But, according to us, the writ petitioner already qualified the qualifying service for obtaining the pension, and hence, according to us, the respondent has been rightly granted relief by the learned writ Court. 11. Indeed, this aspect of the matter has already been taken note of in paras 4, 5 and 6 by the Division Bench of this Court in Shrikrishnan (supra), which has also been quoted by the learned writ Court. We do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State that the Pension Rules of 1976 would be applicable upon the contingency paid or work charged employee. If we go through the application of these pension Rules of 1976 as envisaged in rule 2 of the said Rules, we find that these rules are not applicable to certain employees, who have been categorized (ii) (a) to (g). According to clause (a) these rules would not be applicable for the persons in a work charged establishment, and therefore, since the Pension Rules of 1976 are expressly made inapplicable to those employees. According to us, learned writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition of the writ petitioner. The full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya (supra), para 14 has also taken note of that the pension Rules of 1979. According to us, learned writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition of the writ petitioner. The full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya (supra), para 14 has also taken note of that the pension Rules of 1979. Needless to say the respondent has been retired from the post of Gangman.” In the above matter, the employee concerned was appointed on the same post subsequent to the petitioner and he has been granted the pensionery benefit therefore, the present petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of inaction or delayed action on the part of the respondents. We find that the case of the petitioner is covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Mohd. Sadiq (supra), and he is also entitled to the same benefit as has been extended in that case. Accordingly we allow this letter petition on the same terms by holding that the petitioner is entitled for the pension and direct the respondents to extend the necessary benefits to the petitioner as has been extended in the matter of Mohd. Sadiqu (supra), within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. CC as per rules.” 5. In light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is certainly an identically placed person. The SLP preferred by State of Madhya Pradesh was dismissed on 5.4.2013 and therefore, as it has not been disputed by learned Counsel for State Government that the petitioner is an identically placed person, the writ petition stands allowed on the same terms by holding that the petitioner shall be entitled for pension and other dues which have been extended to the petitioner in the case of Harinarayan Sharma v. State of M.P. In Writ Petition No.2726/2011. 6. Let the exercise of extending the benefit which have been extended to identically placed persons be concluded within a period of 12 weeks from today. The respondents shall ensure payment of pension and other dues within the aforesaid period, failing which the dues shall carry interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of entitlement till the amount is actually paid to the petitioner. Ms. Indira Vyas for petitioner; Rohit Mangal for respondent/State.