Maya Dhobi vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajendra Menon, Judge

This petition has been filed seeking direction against respondents to pay the pension and settle the other post retiral benefits after counting the period of service as daily wager from contingency fund rendered by the petitioner prior to the regularization.

It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on daily wages as Gangman with effect from 24.08.1963. On completion of 25 years of service, he was regularized with effect from 1.1.1996 and on attaining the age of superannuation he stood retired. It is further contention of the petitioner that under the Madhya Pradesh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, the period of service rendered by an employee from work charge/ contingency fund and later on regularized as work charge employee is entitled to get counted such period for the purpose of pension. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Shrikrishna Shirvastava Vs. State of M.P and others, 2003 (4) MPLJ 376 . Reliance has further been placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of M.P and others, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 67 . It is further urged that relying the aforesaid judgments this Court has further taken similar view in the case of Samim Begum Vs. State of M.P. and others, and directed for payment of pension. However, prayer is made to allow the petition and to direct the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner and to finalize post retiral dues accordingly.

The respondents have filed their reply denying the averments as made in the petition. Shri Rajesh Tiwari learned GA appearing for the respondents/ State is not in a position to distinguish that petitioner is not governed by the (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and the judgment as passed in the case of Samim Begum (Supra), Shrikrishna Shrivastava (Supra) and Ram Kumar Agrawal (Supra) relied on by the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts and law in the present case.

Considering the aforesaid, it is to be held that service of the petitioner rendered by him as a daily wager employee from the work charge and contingency fund prior to regularization is required to be counted for the purpose of pension in view of the judgments in Samim Begum (Supra), Shrikrishna Shrivastava (Supra) and Ram Kumar Agrawal (Supra).

Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pension of the petitioner accordingly and to settle the post retiral dues within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to release the same along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed of.

Certified Copy as per rules.