Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 515 (MP)

Susheel Kumar Dwivedi v. State of M. P.

2023-04-21

VIVEK AGARWAL

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the pension calculation sheet issued by respondent No. 4 and to seek direction against the respondents for grant of pension and arrears there of alongwith interest. It is the case of the petitioner he was initially engaged as daily wager from contingency fund with effect from 3.2.1984 after about 13 years of continuous service he was registered per order dated 31.7.1997 in the regular scale of pay of Rs. 825-1220 which is revised from time to time. On attaining the age of superannuation was retired with effect from 31.8.2021 after completion of more than six years of the regular service. 2. On submitting the representations claim with respect to him was rejected because he has not completed the minimum ten years of service required for the purpose of grant of pension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 the period of service rendered by him during 1978 till regulations 18.1.95 is required to be counted for the purpose of pension. 4. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case Smt. 5. Sagra v. State or M.P. and others in W.P. No. 3008/2003, which was decided in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Agrawal v. State of M.P. and others reported in 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 67, however it is urged that the period of service rendered by the petitioner on daily wages from contingency fund deserves to be counted for the purpose of pension as service. However, prayer is made to allow the petition and to direct the respondents to finalize the pension case of the petitioner along with other retiral dues and pay arrears thereof along with interest. 6. Respondents have filed their return, wherein it is set forth that petitioner is not entitled for the pension because he has not completed ten years of the regular service, as required under the rules, therefore the order of rejection of the pension case has rightly been passed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the record. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the question involved in the present case has already been decided by this Court in the case of Smt. 8. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perused the record. On a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the question involved in the present case has already been decided by this Court in the case of Smt. 8. Sagra (supra) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Agrawal (supra) so also taking note of the Pension Rules applicable to the work charged contingency paid employees, whereby it is apparent that the period of service rendered by the daily wager receiving salary from the contingency find is required to be counted for the purpose of pension. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion this petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of petitioner for grant of the pension and to finalize the same within a period of four months from the date of communication of this order. It is further directed that the arrears of the pension be realized to the petitioner within one month alongwith the interest as permissible under the law preferable @ 6% per annum. 10. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.