Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 163 (MP)

Harisingh v. Water Resource Department

2017-02-01

VIVEK RUSIA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Mr. Vivek Rusia, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking direction to the respondents to grant the pensionery benefit treating his services as pensionable from 01/12/1980 to 31/05/2016. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 01/12/1980 and after rendering 36 years service, he retired from his service on 31/05/2016. According to the petitioner, he completed 15 years of service under M.P. (Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, therefore, he is entitled for the regular pension. 3. After notice, the State Government filed the return and submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Daily Rated Employee and in his entire service he has been paid daily wages. Neither he holds the status of regular employee nor he worked under Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees, therefore, he is not entitled for pension. The provisions of M.P. (Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 are not applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner has been paid One Lac Rupees as full and final settlement, therefore, he has no right to get the pension. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. The petitioner raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Court along with 20 similar placed employees. His name is at serial No.7 in the order dated 30/07/2011. Vide order dated 30/07/2011, Labour Court, Ujjain directed the State Government to pay the wages and other benefits of permanent employees, as payable to the Fourth Class Employees. 4. The State Government preferred the Writ Petition No.7918/2012 before this Court. Vide order dated 11/01/2012, the writ petition was dismissed and thereafter, vide order dated 04/02/2014, the writ appeal was also dismissed. Meaning thereby, the order passed by the Labour Court about direction to pay the regular pay scale and other benefits of Fourth Class Employees has been affirmed. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Labour Court by way of application under Section 33 (C)(2) of the ID Act claiming arrears of wages from 01/01/2002 to 31/12/2005 i.e. Rs.2,14,797/-. Vide order dated 01/09/2012, the respondent was directed to pay the regular wages for the aforesaid period i.e. Rs.88,982/-. Thereafter, vide another award dated 20/12/2013, the direction was given to pay the arrears of wages for the period of 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2012 i.e. Rs.1,91,470/-. These awards were also assailed by way of writ petition before this Court by the Government. Vide order dated 01/09/2012, the respondent was directed to pay the regular wages for the aforesaid period i.e. Rs.88,982/-. Thereafter, vide another award dated 20/12/2013, the direction was given to pay the arrears of wages for the period of 01/01/2011 to 31/12/2012 i.e. Rs.1,91,470/-. These awards were also assailed by way of writ petition before this Court by the Government. Vide order dated 30/07/2014, the writ petitions were dismissed. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was paid the regular pay scale of Fourth Class Employees and other benefits. Therefore, they got the classification of permanent employees by virtue of the award passed by the Labour Court, which has been affirmed by Division Bench of this Court. It makes no difference whether the State Government passed the specific order declaring them to be classified as permanent employees or not. After the awards of Lower Court, it was the duty of the Government to pass specific orders to this effect. 6. Thereafter, the Labour Court has passed the order to pay the arrears of regular pay. The said order has also been affirmed by the High Court in the writ petition and the petitioner was paid regular pay scale. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner approached the Labour Court seeking classification of a permanent employee and vide award dated 30/07/2011, the said benefit was granted to the petitioner. Appeal has been dismissed by the Industrial Court, thereafter, the petition was filed challenging the order of Labour Court as well as Industrial Court. Though the order of classification was not issued to that effect but the respondent Department has treated him as permanent employee because orders passed by Labour Court were complied by making a payment of regular pay to the petitioner, therefore, it is not disputed that the petitioner was treated to be classified as a permanent employee and he was treated accordingly by the Department. Therefore, his case is liable to be considered for the purpose of pensionary benefits in the light of the judgment passed in the case of State of M.P v. Ramchandra Singh (W.A No.179/2010) dated 5.8.2013. "8. Therefore, his case is liable to be considered for the purpose of pensionary benefits in the light of the judgment passed in the case of State of M.P v. Ramchandra Singh (W.A No.179/2010) dated 5.8.2013. "8. Dealing with the matter in detail we find that the petitioner was a Gangman working on a daily wage basis and not working against any permanent post as alleged and the dispute that he cannot be extended the benefit of the M.P Pension Rules 1979 is however finally set at rest in the matter of Vishnu Mutiya and others v. State of M.P and others ( 2006(1) MPLJ 23 whereby a Full Bench of this Court has held thus: "While deciding the Gulabsingh's case the 1977 Rules and Pension Rules of 1979 were not brought to the notice of the Court. Under Rule 6 of 1976 Rules the employees who were in service for at least fifteen years on 1.1.1974 were eligible for the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid employees. This has been made more liberal by the 1979 Rules. Rule 2(c) of the 1979 Rules lays down that a contingency paid employee or a work charged employee becomes permanent employee wherever he completes fifteen years of his service though it may be after 1.1.1974." And further "in such circumstances we hold that the services of gangman are governed by the Rules applicable to work charged and contingency paid employees even though the gangman is not included in the schedule of 1976 Rules and the age of superannuation is 62 years as other Class IV employees of the State Government because they are in comparable category." 8. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of pension within a period of three months. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.