Rajani Monu Jhariya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others

This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a relief of quashing the order dated 09.01.2019, Annexure P/6, whereby the petitioner has

been denied benefit of family pension.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Sweeper in the year 2003 and died in

harness on 09.09.2007 within four years of his appointment. The petitioner thereafter applied for family pension which has been denied to the

petitioner by the impugned order.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of State of M.P. and others vs.

Smt. Uma Devi Thakur (W.A.No.877/2013), submits that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner is entitled

to family pension on the ground of parity and that the order passed by the respondent authorities rejecting the petitioner’s claim deserves to be

quashed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the husband of the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the procedure

prescribed by the Rules, but was appointed as a contingency paid employee after his case was scrutinized by the selection committee. It is also clear

that the petitioner’s husband worked as a contingency paid employee for a short period of four years and thereafter died.

A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Shukla vs. State of M.P. and others, 2011(3) MPLJ 210, framed the following questions and

answered question Nos. (ii) & (iii), which is relevant for the purpose of this case in paragraph 24, after discussing the law at length, as follows:

Questions:

“(i) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 725/ 2007 (Smt. Rahisha Begum Vs. State of M.P. and others) is not a good law in

view of the decision of the earlier Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18-7-2005, passed in W.P. No. 1273/2000 (State of M.P. and others

Vs. Ram Singh and another) ?

(ii) Whether an employee is eligible for the benefit of family pension in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and

Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 after completing qualifying service in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment Rules framed

by the concerned Department for work charged and contingency paid employees or in accordance with the definition of Rule 2 of Madhya Pradesh

(Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 in regard to ""contingency paid employee"", ""work-charged employee"" and

permanent employee"" ?

(iii) Whether for counting qualifying service of an employee for the purpose of grant of benefit of pension it is necessary that the employee has to be

appointed in accordance with the provisions of contingency paid employees recruitment rules framed by the concerned department in regard to work

charged and contingency paid employees ?â€​

Answer:

“24. On the basis of above discussion, we hold in regard to the substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3 that an employee is eligible to count his

past service as qualifying service in accordance with Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979, if he was appointed in accordance with the provisions of

Recruitment Rules of 1977. We further hold that an employee, who was not appointed in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment Rules framed

by the concerned department i.e. the Recruitment Rules of 1977, would not be eligible to count his past service as qualifying service for the purpose of

grant of pension in accordance with the Pension Rules of 1979 and we answer the substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3 accordingly.â€​

The issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of this Court and as the

petitioner’s husband had neither completed the necessary qualifying service nor had he been appointed in accordance with the Rules governing the

services of Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench, the petitioner is not entitled for

family pension.

So far as the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Smt. Uma Devi Thakur (supra) is concerned, from a perusal

thereof it is apparent that the husband of the respondent Smt. Uma Devi therein, was appointed as a daily wage employee on 25.01.1986 and was

thereafter brought on regular establishment on 21.11.1989 and died as a regular employee while in service on 04.07.1998. It was in the backdrop of

the aforesaid aspect which clearly indicates that the husband of the respondent therein had worked for nearly 10 years as a regular employee, the

Division Bench of this Court relying on the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) had dismissed the writ appeal filed by the

State upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge granting relief to the respondent therein. The facts of the present case is totally different,

therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Smt.

Uma Devi Thakur (supra) is misplaced and misconceived.

Quite apart from the above, as stated in the preceding paragraphs, the issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition is squarely covered against

the petitioner by the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) and, therefore, we do not find any merit in the present petition

filed by the petitioner which is, accordingly, dismissed.