Allowed

Baratu Ram Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2022WPS/8529/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed a writ petition where the petitioner, a contingent paid employee regularized in 2008, sought inclusion of pre-regularization service for pension calculation. The court held pre-regularization service counts as pensionable under Rules 1977 and previous precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to calculate entire service period from initial appointment in April 1977 for pensionary benefits

Baratu Ram Pal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

W.P.(S) No. 8529 of 2022

¶5

Baratu Ram Pal S/o Vishram Aged About 63 Years R/o Village, Post And Tehsil - Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Nirman Bhwan, Sector - 19, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division - Bemetara, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Collector, Bemetara,, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Division - Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy.A.G.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶16

09/12/2022

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner joined service as Contingency Paid Employee in the month of April, 1977 with respondents. Petitioner since the date of his initial appointment i.e. April, 1977 continuously worked and pursuant to circular issued by State Government dated 05.03.2008, he was regularized in service vide order dated 26.08.2008. Petitioner worked as regular employee, thereafter stood retired upon

¶18

¶19

attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2021.

¶20

After retirement, petitioner was paid retiral dues, however, while calculating retiral dues under head for which petitioner is entitled for, respondents have not considered the entire period of service, which petitioner rendered in the respondents’ department but have considered only total period of service as 13 years 4 months for purpose of calculating pension which is a period after regularization. As petitioner regularized in the establishment considering his engagement as Contingency Paid Employee, therefore, entire period of service are to be considered for retiral dues and pensionary benefits i.e. since the date of his initial appointment. In the service book maintained by respondents, initial engagement of petitioner as Gangman is shown as April, 1977. Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.88 of 2019 considering the issue that contingency paid employee under Rule 4 (2) (b) of Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977 accorded status of temporary employee immediately after completion of five years of service. He also submits that identical issue came up for consideration in Samaru Ram Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2020 , which was allowed in favour of petitioners therein and Writ Appeal No. 163 of 2021 filed by State challenging the order passed in writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 24.06.2021. He also submits that challenging the order passed in writ appeal, State has filed SLP before Supreme Court, which was withdrawn and thereafter

¶21

¶22

Review Petition No. 133 of 2022 was filed, which also came to be dismissed on 12.08.2022. Case of petitioner is squarely covered with order passed in W.A. No.163 of 2021, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the same relief and service rendered by the petitioner as daily wages employee prior to regularization is also to be counted for the purpose of grant of retiral dues including pensionary benefits.

¶23

Learned State counsel opposing submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the status of daily wages employee is different than that of contingency paid employee, and therefore, the petitioner has rightly been denied the benefit of service, which he rendered as daily wage employee. However, she do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to consideration of identical issue in W.P. (s) No. 5142 of 2020 and W.A. No. 163 of 2021 filed by State, which was decided against them..

¶24

I heave heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶25

Grievance raised in this petition is that service, which petitioner rendered from April, 1977 till 26.08.2008 has not been taken into consideration for calculating pensionary benefits.

¶26

Perused Annexure P-2 which is an order dated 18.01.2022 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2020 in case of Samaru Ram & Ors. Vs. State of C.G., wherein writ Court observed as under :-

¶27

“ 2. It is contended that the petitioners had joined

¶28

¶29

their services as contingency paid employee. Later on they were regularized by the department and superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that the service of the petitioners as contingency paid/temporary employee prior to the date of regularization has 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 :-

¶30

“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:

¶31

^^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

¶32

izfr]

¶33

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

¶34

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.kA

¶35

NRrhlx<+ ¼dk;ZHkkfjr rFkk vkdfLedrk ls osru

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

¶42

The writ appeal is allowed in the above stated terms.

¶43

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 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.

¶44

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.”

¶45

Order passed in W.P.(S) No.5142 of 2020 was challenged in writ appeal before Division Bench of this Court and Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal observing thus :-

¶46

“4. 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.

¶47

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.

¶48

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 Gang” . 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

¶49

¶50

petition, the fact that the writ petitioners were members of permanent gang is sufficient to establish their status as one of contingency paid employee.

¶51

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.

¶52

It is accordingly dismissed.”

¶53

Against the order of writ appeal, State has filed Special Leave Petition bearing S.L.P. (C) No. 20477 of 2021 before Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was withdrawn vide order dated 25.02.2022 with liberty to file review petition. Review Petition No.133 of 2022 filed before Division Bench of this Court also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2022.

¶54

In the aforementioned facts of the case, petitioner, who was initially engaged as daily wage employee, and was working as gang man as mentioned in service book and had subsequently been regularized pursuant to circular issued by State Government dated 05.03.2008, letter of State Government dated 02.03.2005 is also entitled for counting entire period of service, which he rendered since 1977 till the date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2021 for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. It is ordered accordingly. Implementation of order shall be made after due verification of service record of petitioner.

¶55

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off.

¶56

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶57

Balram

Baratu Ram Pal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baratu Ram Pal 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

Itwaru Ram Netam Vs Union of India

Bintu Ram Netam Vs Union of India

Banwarilal Kushwaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lekhram Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Priyanka Tiwari Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Kumar Panka Vs State of Chhattisgarh