State Of Chhattisgarh vs Samaru Ram Sahu

This writ appeal would call in question the order passed by learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondents herein

(henceforth petitioners) upon reliance in the order passed by Division Bench by this Court in WA No.88/2019.

The petitioners pleaded that they being appointed as contingency paid employee and having been regularized subsequently, their period of service

rendered in the capacity of the contingency paid employee should have been counted for the purposes of calculation of retiremental dues.

In writ appeal No. 88/2019, the following order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court:-

“5. Petitioner's services during his posting in the Contingency Paid Establishment were governed under the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department

Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977. Under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the said Rules, a

contingency paid employee is accorded temporary status immediately upon completion of 5 years service. On representation by the Employees Union,

the State Government issued a circular on 02.03.2005, which reads as follows:

In the above quoted circular, the State Government clearly directed that for counting the pensionable service, the period spent as temporary

employee Shall also be counted. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has also held in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava vs State of

M. P. and others, reported in (2003) 4 MPLJ 376, that period of temporary service rendered by a contingency paid employee shall be counted in the

pensionable service.

In view of the circular issued by the State Government and the law laid down by the Division Bench of the M. P. High Court in Shrikrishna

Shrivastava (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's pensionable service Should be counted from the date he completed 5 years

service from the date of initial appointment, as immediately upon completion of 5 years service in the Contingency Paid Establishment, the petitioner

had acquired temporary status under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1977. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, it is directed that the respondents shall

recalculate the petitioner's pensionable service in accordance with this order and pay him the entire consequential benefits within a period of 3 months

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. There shall be no order as to interest on the arrears.

The writ appeal is allowed in the above stated terms.â€​

In this writ appeal, learned State counsel would place reliance on an interim order passed by this Court in WA No.102/2020 dated 05-02-2020,

wherein a similar order passed by the single Bench has been stayed.

In the order dated 05-02-2020 passed in writ appeal No.102/2020, the petitioners therein were daily wages employee and therefore, on the said

premises an interim order has been passed.

In the case at hand, the extract of service book of most of the writ petitioners would reveal that they were working in the Department of Public

Works in the category of General Majdoor being part of “Permanent Gangâ€. There is no dispute that members of “Permanent Gang†are

engaged as contingency paid employee. Even though, the order of appointment has not been filed alongwith writ petition, the fact that the writ

petitioners were members of permanent gang is sufficient to establish their status as one of contingency paid employee.

Reliance placed by single Judge in the order passed in the WA No.88/2019 is in accordance with law and there is no scope of interference in this

appeal.

It is accordingly dismissed.