ORDER : 1. As common question of law and facts are involved in the bunch of these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have filed the bunch of the writ petitions being aggrieved with the non fixation of their pension and payment of undervalued provisional pension. The petitioners have also prayed for other retiral benefits such as leave encashment and payment of gratuity to them. 3. Before going through the bone of contention between the parties it is expedient for this Court to extract the service chronology of the petitioners in tabulated form :- Name of petitioner/employee Initial appointment Regularisation in initial appointment Promotion and the post Regularisation on promotional post Retirement Suresh Kumar Shrivastava (WPS No. 1453/2021) As Servant on 14.03.1980 04.04.1989 in pay scale of 725-10-735-900/- As Lab Attendant w.e.f. 29.10.2005 w.e.f. 11.06.2007 01.07.2020 as Lab Attendant Ram Kumar Dewangan (WPS No. 3121/2021) As Servant on 14.03.1980 14.03.1985 in pay scale of 380-5-425-495/- As Lab Attendant w.e.f. 02.02.1991. As Lab Technician w.e.f. 30.03.1995 30.06.2020 as Lab Technician Late R. Noidas As Gardner on 14.03.1980 04.04.1989 in pay scale of 725-10-735-900/- As peon on 12.06.2006 subsequently promoted to Lab Attendant w.e.f. 16.04.2008 01.08.2018 as Lab Attendant 4. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioners stood retired from service as per the dates mentioned above but their pension as per the last salary drawn by them has not been finalised. Only provisional pension of Rs.12,600/- pm is being paid to them. Aggrieved with the non-fixation of regular pension as per the last drawn salary, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions and prayed for fixation of pension as per last salary drawn by them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are entitled to fixation / computation of their pension as per the last salary drawn by them on the date of their superannuation. The act of omission and negligence on the part of the respondent authorities has resulted in violation of fundamental rights to present petitioners and would pray for issuing appropriate writ/order/direction, directing the Respondent authorities to fix the pension of the petitioners, based on the last salary drawn by them within stipulated time and other retiral benefits such as leave encashment and payment of gratuity to them. 6. 6. The State has filed their return contending that the delay in releasing the regular pension is on account of dispute with regard to promotion of the petitioners. The petitioners were initially appointed as contingency paid employees and they subsequently were promoted in regular pay scale. The office of the Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur raised objection while considering the case of the petitioners for pension that the petitioners have been wrongly granted promotion. Under this situation, the respondents made attempt to obtain post fact permission from the State Government to grant promotion, however, the Under Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Medical Education vide letter dated 25.01.2023 denied grant of post facto permission for grant of promotion to the petitioners, therefore, regular pension to petitioners could not be fixed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 8. The petitioners have filed report of the committee dated 28.09.2022 which has examined the case of the petitioners for grant of post facto approval and after going through the records has recommended for getting approval. 9. This Court vide order dated 12.09.2022 has directed the State to clarify what is the criteria for promotion on the post of Lab Attendant from the post of peon. The State was also directed to clarify if peon who is working as Contingency Paid Employee, can be promoted on the post of regular establishment of the Medical College, Raipur or not? In pursuance of direction passed by this Court the State has filed affidavit on 11.11.2022 which reads as under :- 3. In compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order it is humbly submitted that there is no specific criteria for promotion on the post of Lab Attendant from the post of Peon. According to the Schedule IV of the Notification dated 20.10.1989 issued by the Public Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh at Serial No. 36 & 39 the avenue of promotion of Class IV employee has been given. As per serial No. 39 the Peon can be promoted to the post of Dresser Grade II. Copy of the relevant extract of the Schedule IV of the Notification dated 20.10.1989 alongwith setup is filed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE R-3. As per serial No. 39 the Peon can be promoted to the post of Dresser Grade II. Copy of the relevant extract of the Schedule IV of the Notification dated 20.10.1989 alongwith setup is filed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE R-3. It is further submitted that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Lab Attendant was considered by the DPC and in view of the aforesaid avenue of promotion from the post of Peon to Dresser and as the post of Dresser was not available in the college, the DPC had decided to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Lab Attendant. 4. It is further submitted that, although the petitioner was working as contingent employee, however, as per the order dated 04.07.2017 the Director, Medical Education, Chhattisgarh has issued directed that after changing the post of contingency into regular post, the proceeding of promotion could be initiated. Copy of the order dated 04.07.2017 is filed and marked herewith as ANNEXURE R-4. 10. The State has filed documents dated 25.01.2023 Annexure R/6 issued by the Under Secretary, Medical Education Department by which the proposal made by the Dean Medical, College for post facto permission to regularise the proceeding of promotion has been rejected and also directed to take disciplinary action against the officers/employees involved in the said proceeding. The State has also filed memo dated 23.03.2023 written by the Director, Medical Education by which he has rejected the proposal made by the Dean Medical College for post facto regularisation of promotion of the petitioners and other candidates. 11. From the above submission and the facts projected by the parties the points to be determined by this Court are :- i. Whether the denial of pension on the basis of last salary drawn by the petitioners on promoted post on which the petitioners have completed more than 10 years is justified ? ii. Whether under the Rules of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgrarh Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial (Related to the Directorate of Health Services) Class – III Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 (in short ‘the Rules of 1989’) the Secretary has authority to take decision regarding regularisation of promotion when he is not appointing authority? 12. ii. Whether under the Rules of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgrarh Public Health and Family Welfare Department Non-Ministerial (Related to the Directorate of Health Services) Class – III Service Recruitment Rules, 1989 (in short ‘the Rules of 1989’) the Secretary has authority to take decision regarding regularisation of promotion when he is not appointing authority? 12. To decide these issues it is expedient for this Court to extract the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1989, which are as under :- 2(a) ‘Appointing Authority’ in respect of the service means the authority as specified in column (6) of the Schedule Schedule I : Blood Bank and Laboratory Services - Sl. No. Name of posts No. of posts Classification Pay Scale Appointing Authority 36 (A) Laboratory Attendant (Hospital) 150 Class -III Rs.775-1209 Chief Medical and Health Officer (B) Laboratory Attendant (Pesticide) 6 Class -III Rs.775-1209 Director of Medical Services (C) Laboratory Attendant (Filaria) 3 Class -III Rs.775-1209 1. Director of Medical Services for Head quarter posts 2. Chief Medical and Health Officer for remaining posts 40 (A) Dresser Grade -1 2000 Class -III Rs.800-1225 1. Chief Medical and Health Officer or 2. Principal, Health and Family Welfare Training Centre. 3. Dean, Medical College for attached Health Institutes under their control (B) Dresser Grade -2 500 Class -III Rs.775-1209 13. Appointment by promotion (1) There shall be constituted Committee consisting of the members mentioned in Schedule IV for making preliminary selection for promotion of eligible candidates. (2) The Committee shall meet at intervals ordinarily not exceeding one year. (3) 16% and 20% of the available vacancies for promotion in such posts in which the percentage of promotion is 33 percent or more as specified in Schedule II, shall be reserved for Officials belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are eligible for promotion in accordance with the provision of rule 14. (4) Procedure for making promotions in the reserved vacancies shall be in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in the General Administration Department from time to time. 14. (4) Procedure for making promotions in the reserved vacancies shall be in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in the General Administration Department from time to time. 14. Conditions of eligibility for promotion.-(1) Subject to the provisions of the sub-rule (2) the Committee shall consider the cases of all persons, who on the first day of January of that year had completed not less than such number of years of service (whether officiating of substantive) in the posts service as mentioned in column (2) of Schedule or any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the Government and are within the Zone of consideration in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2): Provided that the services of the released officials of Emergency Commissions and short service Commission after their appointments in services, shall be counted from the date from which they have been deemed to have been appointed in the service in accordance with the General Administration Department Memo No. 2266-1987-1 (3)-67, dated the 21st October, 1967: Provided further that no junior person shall be considered for promotion in preference to the person senior to him only on the basis of his completing the service under this sub-rule: Provided further that no person shall be considered for promotion unless he has completed two years service in the Scheduled area: Provided further that the non-posting of a person in the Scheduled area shall not operate as disqualification for his promotion. Note.-(i) Period spent on Training and probation in the Scheduled area shall be treated as service for the purposes of the above proviso. (ii) This condition shall not apply in case of future promotions of persons who were promoted prior to the enforcement of these rules. (2) The field of selection shall ordinarily be limited to seven times the number of persons to be to be included in the select list in respect of posts to be filled on the basis of "merit cum seniority” and five times the number of persons to be included in the select list in respect of posts to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit: Provided that if the required number of suitable persons are not available in the field may be enlarged to the extent considered necessary by the promotion Committee by mentioning the reasons in writing. Schedule IV: - Sl. Schedule IV: - Sl. No. Name of the post from which promotions to be made Name of the post to which promotion is to be made Essential Experience and qualification Department Promotion Committee 29. Lab Assistant (Medical and Filaria) Lab Assistant (Medical and Filaria) 1. Should have obtained 10 months or 1 year training of Pathology Laboratory-Technician or Diploma in Medical Pathology At Divisional Level – 1. Senior Most Chief Medical and Health Officer (Division)-Chairman 2. Deputy Director of Health Services (Malaria) (Division). 3. Regional /District Leprosy Officer-I (Senior Most). Out of the three aforesaid persons Senior Officer shall be the Chairman and other two shall be the members. 4. District Family Welfare and Health Officer-Member 5. District Malaria Officer (Head Officer)-Member. 35. Lab Attendant and Med. Malaria/Filaria Lab Assistant (M and F) 3 years At Divisional Level – 1. Senior Most Chief Medical and Health Officer (Division)-Chairman 2. Deputy Director of Health Services (Malaria) (Division). 3. Regional /District Leprosy Officer-I (Senior Most). Out of the three aforesaid persons Senior Officer shall be the Chairman and other two shall be the members. 4. District Family Welfare and Health Officer-Member 5. District Malaria Officer (Head Officer)-Member. 36. Word boy, Aya (Class IV) Lab. Attendant (M.Mal and F) 5 years At District Level - 1. Senior Most District Family Welfare-cum-health Officer-Chairman. 2. Superintendent District Hospital-Member. 3. Superintendent T.B. or other subordinate, Hospital-member 4. District Malaria Officer-Member 5. Administrative Officer - Member 39. Peon/ Wardboy/ Aya/ Khallasi/ Mali/Dhobi/ Sweeper (Class -IV) Dresser Grade-2 1. 5 years 2. Should have passed Higher Secondary or High School Examination in 10+2 Education System At District Level - 1. Senior Most District Family Welfare-cum-health Officer-Chairman. 2. Superintendent District Hospital-Member. 3. Superintendent T.B. or other subordinate, Hospital-member 4. District Malaria Officer-Member 5. Administrative Officer - Member 13. Peon/ Wardboy/ Aya/ Khallasi/ Mali/Dhobi/ Sweeper (Class -IV) Dresser Grade-2 1. 5 years 2. Should have passed Higher Secondary or High School Examination in 10+2 Education System At District Level - 1. Senior Most District Family Welfare-cum-health Officer-Chairman. 2. Superintendent District Hospital-Member. 3. Superintendent T.B. or other subordinate, Hospital-member 4. District Malaria Officer-Member 5. Administrative Officer - Member 13. From the above stated rules have been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and have binding effect in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Pal Chaturvedi vs. State of Rajasthan { (1970) 1 SCC 75 } wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held under :- “The Collegiate Branch Rules having been made pursuant to the power conferred by Art. 309 of the Constitution, they must be given full effect subject to the provisions of any Act made by the appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch). Such Act need not specifically deal with the aforesaid Medical Services but it must be an Act as contemplated by Art. 309 by or under which provision is made regulating the recruitment and conditions of service taking within its fold the said Medical Services.” 14. The Rule 2(a) defines that authority mentioned in column 6 Schedule-I will be the appointing authority. The petitioners were initially appointed as Servant in work charged and contingency paid employee category thereafter, their services were regularised in the work charged establishment. The erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh has issued various circulars dated 15.01.1958, 15.01.1985, 01.05.1985, 07.01 1987 for appointment of Work Charged and Contingency Paid employees in regular establishment. Accordingly, the petitioners were appointed by way of promotion as Lab Attendant in the regular establishment. As per the recruitment rules the post of the Servant is Class-IV and post of Lab Attendant is Class-III post. The appointing authority for the posts of Laboratory Attendant has been provided as Chief Medical and Health Officer and the appointing authority for Dresser-II will be Chief Medical and Health Officer or Principal, Health and Family Welfare Training Centre or Dean, Medical College for attached Health Institutes under their control and as per Schedule IV the peon ward boy/Aya (Class IV) can be promoted on the post of Lab Attendant (M. Mal. and F) on completing 5 years of service. and F) on completing 5 years of service. The petitioners are having requisite qualification for promotion, accordingly, they have been promoted. The Schedule IV of the Rules, particularly Item 36 clearly provides that ward boy/Aya (Class IV employee) can be promoted on the post of Lab Attendant, as such there is no illegality in promoting the petitioners on the post of Lab Attendant. 15. The objection raised by the Treasury, Accounts and Pension in case of Suresh Kumar Shrivastava and Late I. Noidas that as per the rules, at serial No. 39 of the Schedule-IV, the petitioners should have been promoted on the post of Dresser-II. This objection is deserved to be overruled as per Schedule I of the Rules the pay scale of Lab Attendant and Dresser Grade-II is Rs.775-1209 as such, also financial loss to the State is accrued on account of promotion of the petitioners as Lab Attendant. There may be only difference of nomenclature of the post which has lost significance on account of service rendered by the petitioners for such a long period. So far as the objection with regard to petitioner Ram Kumar Dewangan that no document has been placed on record that petitioner has been promoted on the post of Lab Assistant. This objection is also deserved to be overruled in view of the fact that the petitioner was promoted as Lab Attendant on 01.02.1991 and as per the rule for promotion to the post of Lab Assistant the qualification is 3 years of service as Lab Attendant and for promotion the post of Lab Technician the candidate should have obtained 10 months or 1 year training of Pathology Laboratory Technician or Diploma in Medical Pathology. The record of the case would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has already completed the training of 10 months of Laboratory Technician training court on 20.08.1988. Thus, from very beginning the petitioner was having requisite qualification. The petitioner was promoted on post of Lab Technician on 30.03.1995 from the post Lab Assistant. Since, petitioner has completed the requisite service for promotion to the post of Lab Assistant and the State has not disputed the subsequent promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lab Technician, now the State cannot take stand that he was not promoted even if the records are not available with the State. Since, petitioner has completed the requisite service for promotion to the post of Lab Assistant and the State has not disputed the subsequent promotion of the petitioner on the post of Lab Technician, now the State cannot take stand that he was not promoted even if the records are not available with the State. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for in-action on part of the respondents or non-availability of records with them by denying pension on the promoted post. 16. The petitioners have been promoted on 29.10.2005, 02.02.1991 and 16.04.2008 respectively, as such, they have completed more than 10 years and thereafter, retired from service. Therefore, the objection raised by the Pension and Treasury Account questioning the alleged irregularity in the promotion is deserved to be rejected on the count that the promotion of the petitioners was in conformity with the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This Court has called upon the service book of one of the petitioner – Suresh Kumar Shrivastava and it was found that service book was sent for verification whenever the petitioner was promoted or was granted benefit of revision of pay rules, no objection whatsoever has been taken by them, as such, even if there is irregularity in promotion of the petitioners then also it has to be cured by the department within a reasonable time period which they miserably failed to do so for more than 10 years, as such, it cannot be cured now by not fixing the regular pension to the petitioners or family pension of one of the petitioners. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Balbir Singh vs. State of H.P. and Others { (2000) 10 SCC 166 } has considered the issue of withdrawal of erroneous promotion after holding the promotional post continuously and held as under:- 4. It is surprising to note that prior to the disposed of the writ petition filed by Shri Walia, the appellant herein was reverted vide order dated 2-7-1988 allegedly on the ground that he had been promoted erroneously under a mistaken belief. The record reveals that the respondent-State had taken a conscious decision of promoting the appellant and was, therefore, not justified in reverting him allegedly on the ground of non-availability of reservation as per instructions of the Government. The record reveals that the respondent-State had taken a conscious decision of promoting the appellant and was, therefore, not justified in reverting him allegedly on the ground of non-availability of reservation as per instructions of the Government. The respondents cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold in the same breath inasmuch as in the petition filed by Mr. Walia they justified the promotion of the appellant by stating that he was deprived of his promotion erroneously and when the question of his promotion came, it took the same plea of erroneously promoting him under mistaken belief. It is on record that till the promotion of the appellant as Junior Engineer seven such posts had been filled up by promotion meant for various categories including Electrical Grade-I from 10% promotion quota. He had been promoted upon his representation which was duly considered and appropriate orders passed in his favour. It is conceded before us that after his promotion the appellant has continuously been holding the post of the Junior Engineer. The Tribunal appears to have misdirected itself by not taking note of the relevant facts of the case and the stand of the Government justifying the promotion of the appellant which was upheld by the High Court in the writ petition filed against him. 5. Under the peculiar circumstances of this case, as noticed hereinabove, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 11-8-1989 and the orders of the respondent-State dated 2-7-1988 by which the appellant was reverted to the post of Electrician Grade-I. No order as to costs. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shekhar Ghosh vs. Union of India { (2007) 1 SCC 331 } has considered the issue of rectification of mistake and has held that it should be done expeditiously as possible. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:- 15. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 686 , this Court opined:- "...It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose." 16. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:- 15. In K.I. Shephard v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 686 , this Court opined:- "...It is common experience that once a decision has been taken, there is a tendency to uphold it and a representation may not really yield any fruitful purpose." 16. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that there is some shift in the concept of principles of natural justice which has been noticed by this Court in P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India & Ors., 2006 (5) SCALE 54 in the following terms:- "The Court has shifted from its earlier concept that even a small violation shall result in the order being rendered a nullity. To the principal doctrine of audi alterem partem, a clear distinction has been laid down between the cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principal. The Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. It is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a straight jacket formula" 17. It is not denied or disputed that even when a mistake is sought to be rectified, if by reason thereof, an employee has to suffer civil consequences ordinarily the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. It was so held in Ram Ujarey v. Union of India [ (1999) 1 SCC 685 ] in the following terms:- "17. There is yet another infirmity in the impugned order of reversion. The appellant had been allowed the benefit of service rendered by him as Coal Khalasi in the Loco Department from 1964 to 1972 as that period was counted towards his seniority and it was on that basis that he was called for the trade tests which the appellant had passed and was, thereafter, promoted to the posts of Semi-skilled Fitter and Skilled Fitter. If the benefit of service rendered by him from 1964 to 1972 was intended to be withdrawn and promotion orders were to be cancelled as having been passed on account of mistake, the respondents ought to have first given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. If the benefit of service rendered by him from 1964 to 1972 was intended to be withdrawn and promotion orders were to be cancelled as having been passed on account of mistake, the respondents ought to have first given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant having earned two promotions after having passed the trade tests, could not have been legally reverted two steps below and brought back to the post of Khalasi without being informed that the period of service rendered by him from 1964 to 1972 could not be counted towards his seniority and, therefore, the promotion orders would be cancelled. In a situation of this nature, it was not open to the respondents to have made up their mind unilaterally on facts which could have been shown by the appellant to be not correct but this chance never came as the appellant, at no stage, was informed of the action which the respondents intended to take against him." 18. Curiously Respondents in their counter-affidavits filed before the Tribunal and the High Court did not raise any plea of rectification of any mistake. It was also not stated in the show cause notice issued to the appellant. Only a plea of mistake was taken for the first time before the Tribunal, but no plea was taken that it was entitled to rectify the same or his order impugned before it was capable of being rectified. Thus, it was not a case where an opportunity of hearing was given to Appellant on the premise that a mistake had been committed by the authorities of the first respondent and the same was required to be rectified. 19. If a mistake is to be rectified the same should be done as expeditiously as possible. [See Board of Secondary Education, Assam v. Mohd. Sarjumma (2003) 12 SCC 408 ] 20. We are not oblivious that in Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal IV and Others [ (1994) 5 SCC 180 ], an order passed by way of a mistake was permitted to be corrected as the same was done in violation of the order of injunction. Sarjumma (2003) 12 SCC 408 ] 20. We are not oblivious that in Ram Chandra Tripathi v. U.P. Public Services Tribunal IV and Others [ (1994) 5 SCC 180 ], an order passed by way of a mistake was permitted to be corrected as the same was done in violation of the order of injunction. In such a situation only, this Court held that an opportunity of being heard for correcting such mistake would not arise because there would not have been any occasion to take one view or the other in the matter on the basis of representation to be made by the affected employee. 18. Thus, the point No.1 is answered in favour of the petitioners by directing the respondents to fix the pension/family pension of the petitioners as per the last drawn salary and all other permissible retiral dues within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 19. As per the Recruitment Rules of 1989, the Dean Medical College was the appointing authority and as such, it was not required for the Dean Medical College to get approval of the Promotion order of the petitioners as the recruitment rules which has statutory force do not provide any such procedure for getting approval from the Secretary of the department. Rule 20 of the said rule provides power of relaxation which is lying with the His Excellency, the Governor. There is no such provision has been placed on record even the relaxation power has been delegated to the Secretary Medical Education or the Director Medical Education, therefore, in these circumstances it was not required for the Dean Medical College, Raipur to send the matter for approval to the Secretary. Thus, the issuance of memo dated 25.01.2023 and 23.03.2023 have no relevancy on the issue. Accordingly, the point No. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioners by holding that the Secretary, Medical Education or the Director, Medical Education has no role to play in appointment of the petitioners being Class III and Class IV employees whose appointing authority is the Dean, Medical College. 20. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed in terms of the directions given in penultimate paragraphs.