Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 401 (MP)

Prabhulal v. State of M. P.

2019-05-17

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2019
ORDER 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to extend the benefit of pension. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Pump Operator vide order dated 12.1.1996 and had retired on 31.5.2005 after completing 9 years 1 month and 30 days of service. The petitioner's paper were forwarded for the purpose of pension but the same were returned by the Pension Officer on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to the pensionary benefit. 3. The respondents have filed the reply taking the stand that the petitioner had not completed minimum qualifying service, therefore, he is not entitled to pension. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has wrongly been denied the benefit of pension and from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 1997, the petitioner had completed more than 15 years, therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of pension. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition submitting that the eligibility of the petitioner is to be considered from the date of the order dated 12.1.1996. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that the nature of appointment since 1977 has not been disclosed by the petitioner but by order dated 12.1.1996 the petitioner was taken on the post of Pump Operator in the Work Charge and Contingency Paid Establishment. The Treasury Officer vide order dated 26.5.2005 had rejected the claim for the pension on the ground that the petitioner had not completed minimum 10 years of service as required by Rule 43(2) of the Pension Rules, 1976. The Rule 43(2) of the Pension Rules reads as under : "(2) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than ten years, the amount of pension shall be appropriate; amount as set out below, namely :- ..... 7. The petitioner is claiming pension on the basis of Rule 2(b) and (c) of the Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1979. 7. The petitioner is claiming pension on the basis of Rule 2(b) and (c) of the Work Charge and Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1979. Rule 2(c) reads as under : "(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 employees means an employee who has completed 10 years of service on or after the 1st January, 1974." 8. The 10 years service which has been prescribed in the proviso to aforesaid rule was subsequently reduced to 6 years vide notification dated 30.1.1996 and the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. and others v. Mohammad Sadiq, reported in 2010(4) MPLJ 367 had taken note of the said notification by observing as under : "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 sercie or more on or after 1st January, 1974 as contingency paid or a owork 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." 9. The Division Bench in the matter of Rahisha Begam W/o Late Ashraf Khan v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2010 (III) MPWN 94 = 2010(4) MPLJ 332 has reconsidered the aforesaid issue again by observing as under : 12. The Division Bench in the matter of Rahisha Begam W/o Late Ashraf Khan v. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2010 (III) MPWN 94 = 2010(4) MPLJ 332 has reconsidered the aforesaid issue again by observing as under : 12. The Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Agrawal (supra), though it was a case of voluntary retirement wherein the pension was sought, by considering the definition of "permanent employee" of the Pension Rules of 1979 in para 2 has held that the employee Ram Kumar Agarwal is entitled for pension since he qualified the qualifying services of 20 years as he served out for 21 years at the time when he was voluntarily retired. Adopting the analogy of the Supreme Court since the qualifying services which was 10 years earlier, but which has been reduced to six years by the circular of the Government, according to us, the husband of the wri petitioner qualified the qualifying services for obtaining the pension before his death, and hence, the writ petitioner being his wife is entitled for the family pension. At this juncture we would like to quote the circular of the Government by which the qualifying services has been reduced from ten years to six years which reads thus: ^^e/; Áns'k 'kklu foRr foHkkx ea=ky; vf/klwpuk Hkksiky] fnukad 30 tuojh] 96 Øekad ch&25-17-95 ihmCY;wlh Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn ds ijUrqd }kjk çnRr 'kfDr;ksa dks Á;ksx esa ykrs gq;s e/; Áns'k ds jkT;iky ,rn }kjk] e/; Áns'k ¼dk;Zdkfjr rFkk vkdfLedrk ls osru ikus okys deZpkjh½ isa'ku fu;e] 1979 esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku djrs gS vFkkZr %& la'kks/ku mDr fu;eksa esa %& fu;e & 6 ds mi&fue 2 ds i'pkr fuEufyf[kr mi&fue tksM+k tk, vFkkZr %& ¼3½ fdlh vLFkkbZ deZpkjh ds] fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds] fdlh Hkh fu;fer isa'ku ;ksX; in ij lafofy;u fd;s tkus ij 1 tuojh] 1974 ls vkxs dh dh xbZ lsok] c'krsZ fd ,slh lsok Ng o"kZ ls de dh u gks] isa'ku ds fy;s fxuh tk,xh ekuk fd ,slh lsok fdlh fu;fer in ij dh xbZ gksA e/; Áns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj mi&lfpo e/; Áns'k 'kklu foRr foHkkxA** 10. In the case of the present petition, the respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner for pension in terms of the Rules of 1979. In the case of the present petition, the respondents have not considered the claim of the petitioner for pension in terms of the Rules of 1979. Hence, the present writ petition is disposed off by directing the respondents to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law in respect of claim of the petitioner to grant the benefit of pension as per the requirement of Rules of 1979 keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Pump Operator in the Contingency Establishment on the pay scale vide order dated 12/01/1996. Let this exercise be completed and in case if the petitioner is found entitled for pension, the necessary benefit of pension be extended along with the arrears within a period of 3 months from today.