Allowed

M.S.Siddiqui v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC7 Nov 2019WA/90/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that service rendered by a Contingency Paid Employee prior to regularization, once five years of service were completed to acquire temporary status, must be counted as pensionable service based on applicable Rules and a State Government circular.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to recalculate the petitioner's pensionable service from the date he completed five years of service and pay consequential benefits within three months.

M.S.Siddiqui Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Appeal No. 90 of 2019

¶5

{Arising out of order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 8292 of 2018}

¶6

M.S. Siddiqui, son of late Yaqub Siddiqui, aged about 65 years, resident of Ward No. 34, Pandri, near Kamle Kirana Store, Gali No.1, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.)

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶10

The Executive Engineer, Electricity/Machinery, Light Machinery Nal Koop and Gate Division, Water Resources Division, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶11

The Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts & Pension, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Shri Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per P. R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice

¶18

07.11.2019

¶19

The relief prayed for in the writ petition was for including the period of service rendered by the petitioner as temporary employee in the capacity of

¶20

¶21

contingency paid employee, for counting as pensionable service, which the Department is not counting because the petitioner was regularized on the post of LDC only in the year 1988.

¶22

There is no dispute about the fact of date of petitioner's joining the service in the Contingency Paid Establishment in the year 1979 and his date of regularization in the year 1988. It is also not in dispute that while calculating the pensionary benefits, petitioner's services from the date of regularization have been counted. However, the petitioner claims that his services rendered in the Contingency Paid Establishment as a temporary employee, prior to the date of regularization, should also be counted as pensionable service.

¶23

From the order passed by the Single Bench, it appears that the petitioner has been allowed gratuity by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1979.

¶24

Pension Rules provide for grant of pensionary benefits for the entire qualifying service, which an employee has rendered on a civil post. The period spent by the petitioner as a temporary employee in the Contingency Paid Establishment has not been counted towards the pensionable service for the reason that he came to hold a civil post only after the date of regularization.

¶25

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:

¶26

¶27

^^NRrhlx<+ 'kklu foRr ,oa ;kstuk foHkkx ea=ky;] nkm dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj

¶28

Øekad 81@1056@fo@fu@04 izfr]

¶29

jk;iqj] fnukad 2 ekpZ] 2005

¶30

'kklu ds leLr foHkkx v/;{k] jktLo eaMy] fcykliqj] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr ftyk/;{k] NRrhlx<+ A

¶31

fo”k; % dk;ZHkkfjr@vkdfLed fuf/k ls osru ikus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;fer LFkkiuk esa fu;qfDr gksus ij vgZrknk;h lsok dk fu/kkZj.k A

¶32

NRrhlx<+ ¼dk;ZHkkfjr rFkk vkdfLedrk ls osru ikus okys deZpkjh½ ias'ku fu;e] 1979 ds fu;e 6¼3½ esa ;g izko/kku gS fd fdlh vLFkk;h deZpkjh ds] fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds fdlh Hkh fu;fer isa'ku ;ksX; in lafofy;u fd;s tkus ij] 1 tuojh] 1974 ls vkxs dh xbZ lsok] c'krsZ fd ,slh lsok 6 o”kZ ls de dh u gks] isa'ku ds fy;s fxuh tk;sxh ekuksa fd ,slh lsok fdlh fu;fer in ij dh xbZ gksA^^

¶33

y?kqosru deZpkjh la?kksa }kjk jkT; 'kklu ds /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd dqN foHkkxksa }kjk vgZrkdkjh lsok dh x.kuk gsrq mDr fu;eksa ds rgr vLFkkbZ lsok dks 'kkfey ugha fd;k tk jgk gS A

¶34

leLr foHkkxksa ls vuqjks/k gS fd os mDr izko/kkuksa dks vius v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa ds /;ku esa ykosa rFkk buds vkk/kkj ij vgZrkdkjh lsok dh x.kuk djrs gq, yafcr isa'ku izdj.kksa dk rRdky fujkdj.k djus gsrq funsZf'kr djsA

¶35

gLrk@& ¼lrh'k ik.Ms; ½ milfpo] NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] foRr foHkkx^^

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

The writ appeal is allowed in the above stated terms.

¶41

Sd/Sd/- (P. R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge

¶42

Brijmohan

M.S.Siddiqui v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Siddiqui v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roop Singh Paikra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahaveer Prasad Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bismat Bai

Sunil Kumar Jindal Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Generation Company Limited

Smt. Chandramukhi Mahobiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Heeralal and Anr. Vs Smt. Manju Yadav and Ors.