Allowed

Rajendra Kumar Goshwami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Sept 2021WPS/3851/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding pensionary benefits, the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the period of contingent paid/temporary service rendered by petitioners prior to regularization must be counted towards pensionable service. The court relied on the State Government circular and MP High Court precedent to direct the respondent to recalculate benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to recalculate petitioners' pensionable service from the date they completed 5 years of service and pay consequential benefits within 3 months.

Rajendra Kumar Goshwami Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (S) No. 3851 of 2021

¶5

1. Rajendra Kumar Goshwami S/o Chhabilal Goshwami, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village - Gudiyari Tahsil - Patan, District - Durg Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Shital Prasad Parganiya S/o Maharaj Singh Parganiya, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Taksiwa, Tahsil - Berla, District - Bemetara Chhattisgarh

¶7

---- Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. Sub Divisional Officer, Tandula Water Resources, Sub - Division Durg, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4. Executive Engineer, Tandula Water Resources, Sub - Division Durg, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5. Joint Director, Pension And Accounts Treasury Department, Durg District Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶14

---Respondents

¶15

For Petitioners For State

¶16

: Shri Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate. : Shri Ishan Verma, P.L..

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

¶18

02.09.2021.

¶19

1. The default pointed out by the Registry as of now stands ignored.

¶20

2. It is contended that the petitioners had joined their services as contingency paid employee. Later on, they were regularized by the

¶21

-2-

¶22

department and superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that the services of the petitioners as contingency paid/temporary employee prior to the date of regularization have not been counted for retiremental dues, however, that should have been counted. It is further contended that this issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.88 of 2019 and the following orders have been passed :-

¶23

“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:

¶24

^^NRrhlx<+ 'kklu foRr ,oa ;kstuk foHkkx ea=ky;] nkm dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj dekad 81@1056@fo@fu@04 jk;iqj] fnukad 2 ekpZ] 2005

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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; fxuh tk;sxh ekuksa fd ,slh lsok fdlh fu;fer in ij dh xbZ gksA^^ 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 gSA 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

¶28

-3-

¶29

dh x.kuk djrs gq, yafcr isa'ku izdj.kksa dk rRdky fujkdj.k djus gsrq funsZf'kr djsa A

¶30

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

¶31

foHkkx^^

¶32

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.

¶33

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. 8. The writ appeal is allowed in the above stated terms.

¶34

3. It is ordered accordingly. The judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.88 of 2019 shall also be applicable in this case to the extent that the services rendered by the petitioners as daily wage employee prior to regularization shall also be counted for the purpose of grant of retiral dues including pensionary benefit. The implementation of the same shall be after due verification of the service records of the petitioners.

¶35

4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶36

Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

¶37

Khatai

Rajendra Kumar Goshwami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Kumar Goshwami 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

State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr. Vs Narad Ram And Ors.

Santosh Kumar Siware Vs Prawash Kumar Baghel District Education Officer

Ku. Divya Diwakar Vs Prity Pawar

Sabbir Ahmad Vs S.E.C.L.

Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamaleshwar Patel Vs Shri Dhananjay Dewangan