Allowed

Shyam Sunder Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2022WPS/7676/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows a writ petition seeking to include pre-regularization service as pensionable for temporary employees. Relying on a State Government circular and prior precedent, the court directed respondents to calculate pensionable service from the date five years of temporary service was completed and pay consequential benefits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to recalculate pensionable service from the date five years of temporary service was completed and pay consequential benefits within 3 months.

Shyam Sunder Dubey Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 7676 of 2022

¶5

Shyam Sunder Dubey S/o Shri Sant Ram Dubey, Aged About 66 Years R/o Dugdugiya Mohalla, Near Power House, Police Station Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

D.N. Pandey S/o Late Chandra Bhushan Pandey, Aged About 64 Years R/o Irrigation Colony, Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Ramhaiya Lal Dubey S/o Late Sant Ram Dubey, Aged About 64 Years R/o Gharghoda, Ward No. 5, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh).

¶8

---- Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶11

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶12

The Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resources Division, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶13

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶14

The Divisional Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Petitioners For State

¶17

: Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Dy. A.G.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

05/ 12/2022

¶21

The relief prayed for in the writ petition was for including the period of service rendered by the petitioners as temporary employees in the capacity of contingency paid employee, for counting as pensionable service, which the Department is not counting because the petitioners were joined on the post of Spot Assistant only in the year 1979 and

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

1980 and subsequently the services of the petitioners have been regularized by order dated 14.08.2008.

¶24

There is no dispute about the fact of date of petitioners joining the service in the Contingency Paid Establishment in the year 1979 and 1980 and their date of regularization in the year 2008. It is also not in dispute that while calculating the pensionary benefits, pentioners’ services from the date of regularization have been counted. However, the petitioners claim that their services rendered in the Contingency Paid Establishment as a temporary employees, prior to the date of regularization, should also be counted as pensionable service.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that this issue is decided in W.A. No.88 of 2019 and the following orders have been passed :-

¶26

“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:

¶27

dekad 81@1056@fo@fu@04 jk;iqj] fnukad 2 ekpZ] 2005

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

6. 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.

¶35

7. 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.

¶36

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

¶37

Thereafter in WPS No. 4961/2021 on 16.09.2021, similar order has been passed granting the relief, hence, petitioners also pray for similar relief as granted to petitioners therein.

¶38

Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioners.

¶39

In view of the facts of the case, the petitioners who are working on daily wages have subsequently regularized in the work charged

¶40

Page 4 of 4

¶41

establishment and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 88/2019, the period of their service prior to regularization shall also be counted for the purpose of grant of retiral dues including pensionary benefits.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.

¶43

Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶44

H.L. Sahu

Shyam Sunder Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyam Sunder Dubey 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

Hannudas @ Hanudas Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daya Ram and Ors. Vs State of C.G.

Damodar Prasad Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Xalxo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Gopal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh