Gouram Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2024:CGHC:35629

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPS No. 4735 of 2015

¶6

Gouram Singh S/o Shri Biasakhuram Singh, Aged About 63 Years Sub Division No. 2, Retired As Labour Public Works Department, Balod, District Balod Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2. Director, Treasury, Accounts And Audit Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For Petitioner	: Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocate holding
	the brief of Mr. Anup Majumdar, Advocate
For State/Respondent No. 1	: Mr . Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer
Respondent No. 2	: None, even in the third round.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

1 1.09.2024

¶17

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶18

“10.1 That respondent authorities may be directed to

¶19

pay pension and arrears of pension to the petitioner from his date of retirement and interest upon it at the rate of 12% per month till date of payment.

¶20

10.2 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

10.3 The cost of the petition may be allowed.”

¶22

Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶23

2

¶24

submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Daily-Rated Mazdoor on 07.08.1977 in Public Works Department (PWD), Sub-Division, Gunderdehi, District Balod. He further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Contingency Paid and Work Charged Employee on 22.08.2008. He also submitted that the petitioner was getting a pay scale of Rs. 2550-55-2660-60-3200/- per month. It is further contended that the petitioner retired after completing his 62 years on 30.11.2014, and thus, he could not complete 10 years of qualifying pensionable service. It is contended that according to Rule 6 (3) of the C.G. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee) Pension Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1979”), the petitioner would be entitled to get the pension for completing the requisite period of qualifying service. He further contended that the period of service should be reckoned from the date of initial appointment. He also contended that as per the circular issued by the Finance Department dated 02.03.2005, the temporary services rendered by a workman should be counted for calculating qualifying service for pension. In support thereof, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 527 .

¶25

On the other hand, Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Daily-Rated employee and his services were regularized as a Work Charged and Contingency paid employee on 22.08.2008. He further submitted that according to the Rules 1979, his services would be counted for the purpose of pension from the date of regularization of his services. He also submitted that if the services of the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee are regularized on a pensionable post, in

¶26

3

¶27

such a situation, that workmen would be entitled to get the pension. He further contended that the petitioner failed to establish that his services were regularized on a pensionable post under Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee establishment. He also contended that the qualifying service to receive pension is 10 years and the petitioner could not complete the qualifying service; therefore, he is not entitled to the pension. It is stated that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 22.08.2008 and he retired from services on 30.11.2014.

¶28

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

¶29

Rule 6 of the Rules, 1979 deals with the commencement of qualifying service, and the same reads as under:-

¶30

6. Commencement of qualifying service –

¶31

(1) Subject to the provisions of chapter III of the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 of section IV of Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh New Pension Rules, 1951, as the case may be, for calculating qualifying service of a permanent employee who retired as such, the service rendered with effect from the 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted.

¶32

(2) On absorption of a permanent employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted for Pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post.

¶33

(3) On absorption of temporary employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1974 onwards if such service of less than six years shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post.

¶34

A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would show that for calculating

¶35

the qualifying service of a permanent employee, services rendered by him with effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards would be counted. If such an employee has worked without interruption against any regular

¶36

4

¶37

pensionable post with effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards, the same would be counted for pension. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 says that on absorption of temporary employee against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1974 onwards, and if such service of less than six years, shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post.

¶38

In the present case, the services of the petitioner were regularized as a Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee on 22.08.2008 and he retired from services on 30.11.2014, and thus, he has completed more than 6 years, but with regard to regular pensionable post, there is no document placed on the record. The petitioner could not demonstrate that his services were regularized against the regular pensionable post as a Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee.

¶39

In the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension/quantum of pension. However, after rendering services as a work charged for a number of years and after regularization, the employee cannot be denied pension on the ground that he has not completed the qualifying service for pension. In the matter of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 , which has been considered in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra), it was held that the entire services rendered as work charged were not be counted for qualifying service for pension and pension cannot be denied on the ground that an employee has not completed the qualifying service of pension and the same would be unjust, arbitrary and illegal, but it is also held in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) that the entire service rendered as a work

¶40

5

¶41

charged shall not be considered/counted for the quantum of pension. In the concluding para, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the services rendered as work charged after regularization, the qualifying services for pension would be counted according to the rules. The relevant paras 22, 23, 24 are reproduced herein below:-

¶42

“22. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted, in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. As per the catena of decisions of this Court, there is always a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment. The work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension. However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. That is why, the service rendered as work charged is to be counted and/or considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, which is provided under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.

¶43

Now, insofar as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants is concerned, the reliance placed upon the said decision is absolutely misplaced. In the said case, this Court was considering the validity of Rule 3(8) of the U.P. Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961, under which the entire service rendered as work charged was not to be counted for qualifying service for pension. To that, this Court has observed and held that after rendering service as work charged for number of years in the Government establishment / department, denying them the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension would be unjust, arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, this Court has observed and held that their services rendered as work charged shall be considered / counted for qualifying service. This Court has not observed and held that the entire service rendered as work charged shall be considered / counted for the quantum of pension / pension. The decision of this Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), therefore, would be restricted to the counting of service rendered as work charged for qualifying service for pension.

¶44

In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present appeals lack merits and the same deserve to be

¶45

6

¶46

dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. It is observed and held that the service rendered as work charged after their services have been regularized under the regularization scheme, namely, the Rules, 2013 and the Circular shall be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension only as per Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.”

¶47

Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules, 1979 and the facts of the present case, this petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur (supra) and Rule 6 of the Rules, 1979.

¶48

10. The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent authorities preferably within a period of 120 days. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the merits of the case and the authorities concerned would be at liberty to decide the claim of the petitioner on its own merit.

¶49

11. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the instant petition is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶52

$iddhant

Gouram Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gouram Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.L. Sandhilya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amar Singh Bisen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashrath Lal Kanwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Durjan Vs Balsingh

Santosh Das Manikpuri Vs Ramadhar

Govind Kumar Mishra Vs Shyam Sundar Agrawal