^^:.-^^"^ ^h~~ Petltioner Resoondehts UIGH COURT OF CHHATTISSARH: BiLASPUR WntPetiflon No.S@ OT2006 Rajani Bhushan Mishra, S/o. Jagannath Mishra, Aged about 47 yeara, R/o. Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh). Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh through the Seoretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Building, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2) Commissioner, Department of Higher Education, Govemment of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3) Principal, Govt. Degree Gollege, Sarangarti, Distrtet Raigarh, Chhattisgarh: 4) Joint Dlrector tPensibn), Bitaspur, Chhattisgarh. 0/Vrit Petition underArticle 226Q27 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'bleMr. Satish K. Agnihotri,^. Present: Shri Manindra Shrivastava, Sr. Advooate with Shri H.S. Patel and Shri D.K. Patel, counselforthe petitioner, Shri U.N.S. Deo, .Government Advoeate TortheState. ORAL ORDER ^- (Passed on •!4th February, 2008) k-/ • ' . . . . ' . X-i This petition impugns the order data3 26-11-2005 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been denied retiral benefits on the ground that the petitioner had not sen/ed the qualifying sen/ice of twenty years without break. 2} The indisputable facts, in nutshett, are that initialiy the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor (English) in Government Girls Coltege, Raigarh, on ad hoc basis on 5-9-1 983. Thereafter, in continuation he was appointed in the same oapacity in Government D^ree College, Pathalgaon, on 8-1-1985 on adhoc basls. The Madhya Pradesh Regularisation of Adhoo Appolntment Rules, 1986 oame into force for reguiarization ofthe ad hoc employees on 27-9-1995 The petitioner, being aggrieved by npn-regulairsatipn of his sep/ices on the post of Assistant Professor (English) filed the petition before the High Court of Madhya Praaesh at Jabalpur in ^•.'w? lyisceilaneous Petition No. 'i949 of 1987. On creation of the State Administrative Tri&unal, the said petition was transferred to the Tribunai and was re-numberea as T.A. No.3953/1988. The learned Tribunai by its judgment and order dated 20-8-1998 (Annexure P/2) passed the foilowing order: The petitioner's case shall, therefore, be considered for regular appointment in terms of Rules 1986 keeping in view the educationai qualification required for the post of Lecturer on th date the said ruies came into force. that is to say 05.06.86 and grant him regular appoirtment with all consequentiai benefits. The petitioner's services have been termlnafed with efreot from 16.11.92 as per Annexure R-3. Therefore, as regards the payment of saiary' etc. for the period after this date of termination, it is directed that an enquiry shail be macie as io whether the petitioner worked eisewhere during this pertod and if it is found that he was not employed elsevi/here then oniy the paymerrt of salary and aiiowances shali be made to him for this period. Such shail be made by an officer not beiow the level of Additional Director in the Hlgher Education Department within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt ofthis order by respondents". 3) Feeling aggrieved, the State fiied a writ petition being No. 3814 of 2000 !n this Court. This Court dismlssed fhe writ petitlon on 27-6-2003 (Annexure P/4), holdin^ that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunat. Pursuant to the order passed by the iearned Tribunal, the respondents/State regularized the servioes of the petitioner with effect from 4-3-1987 by order dated 12-4-1999 (Annexure P/3). There v/as no mention about break in servioe during any period from 4-3-1987 till 12-4-1999. 4) The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 26-11-2005 (Annexure P/1), fiied this petition praying for a writ/direction to quash the impugned order dated 26-11-2005 (Annexure P/1) and direct the concemed authrolteis to grant pension to the petitioner, in aocordance with law. ———- -z- 5) Shri Manindra Shrivastava, iearnea Sr. counsei appearing with Shri H.S. Patel and Shri D.K. Patel, Advocates, would submit that the petltioner having been appointed on ad hoc basis on 5-9-1983 is entitled to pension as the petitioner has compieted more than twenty yeare in sen/ice in the light of Rute 15-A of MP/CG Civil Seivioes (Pension) Ruies 1976 (for short, "the Rutes, 1976"). Learned counsel submits that in fact, tne petitioner was terminated from serwces on 16-11-1992 anct he was reinstated and reguiariised in sen/tees with erfeot from 4-3-1987 by ortier dated 12-4-1999. Learnaj oounsei further submits ftat, therefore, the petitioner v.'as in continuation of sen/ice from 5-9-1983 till he took voluntar)/ retirement from seri/ices on 10-2-2005. The period being more than twenty yeare entities the petltioner to grant of reguiar pension underthe provisions of Rule 15-A ofthe Rules, 1976. 6) Per contra, Shri U.N.S. Deo, learned Govemment Advocate appearing for the respondents/State submits that sewices of the petitioner 'would be counted from the date of regularisation i.e., 4-3-1987 and the period spent earlier on appointment as ad 'noc basis, may not be considered as quaiifying sen/ice for the purpose of pension. 7) Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto; it is evident friat there was no break in services of the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed on 5-9-1983 on the post of Assistant Professor (Engiish) in Government Girls Coliege, Raigarh, on ad hoo basis. Ttie post of Assistant Professor (Engtish) in Government Giris Coiiege, Raigarh, is admittedly a pensionabie sen'ice. Thereafter, the petltioner continuaa in the same capacity tiit he was regufarized with efrect from 4-3-1987 byorcierdated 12-4-1999. 8) The contertion of the learned oounsel appearing for the respondents/State is that the qualifying sen/ice wouid be counted from the date of rsgularization in sen/ices, is not sustainable as it is contrary to the Rute 15-A of ihe Ruies 1976. Ruie -Li- 15-A of the Rules 1976 provides for counting of ad hoc semce for the purpose pension. Ruie 15-A ofthe Rules 1976 reads as under: "R«*l 15-^-(Kaf ^qr qft 'l "lil - (Raf <SaT sMt. qfe- sr/ flXaf R^far) R^ftd IR ^ f^S^ aft (TNT f^to fa'IT ^W 1S' SraW-T pj^Rjrj a$f IT^ ^, Warar ^/ ~3^ Tf^ IR (Raf Pi<l,ftd ^wNt. ^tmv'T aiaraT ^' arfta fippir w ^ 4<t)"lRf St^ 1T? •<T ^ rft 9) Admittedly, since there was no break in sewice of the peiitioner with effeot from 5-9-1983 till 4-3-1987, sen/ice wit! be counted as qualifying sen/ice for the purpose of grant of pension as well as oaiculatlon of pension. It is supported by a letter dated 16-5-2005 written by the Principal, Government Degree Coliege, Sarangam, Dist. Raigarh, addressed to the Commlssioner, Higher Education, Directorate, Governmsnt of Chhattisgarh (Annexure P/6) which reads as under: ^ "PflPi^ ^afSg f^fq, 4.3.87 ^ ^ft ftm ^t 3i€«srtT ^W 18 ^ 27 f^sl t ^r-^ 4?I*I fti^PT 15 ^ —o^af~^^f «t^PT-IT — tTqrf ^qr si^^NT ^~ift. trf^ — 3T/ itRsf ft%f^a, fiplto q% ^ flreS aft, tI«IT ft^feT ft-TT flW 4 sraW-i Plqftuf <^ ^ t i <ft -siRO^tQ ftm R^PlK)«t>-'ut 1?i1^r 4.3.37 ^ ^ feiTW 3.3.87 ^ <^qT 4 ^ | 3RT: 1^-0 ~^f 4 araw'f i^up'lr) aft ^ t ! 3RT: «ftft^jT ^f 3)^<ftlfl AqT R^|'<t? 8.1.85 ^ 31.3.2005 (TO 20 q<. 02 JVK, 08 feiT 3fT^?T R^t'<* 12.04.99 ^' ri<r^te?T INSr 16-11. 92 ^ ^'pf'ITR fyf fS.^!"* 24-5.98 Tfs 35t ftrfSr a?T ^n'T 'FfflT-T WWl ^ .3iT<tW gwfcr -isf ?N <^ ngf fiiW Vfff ^ !" »te«* //e^ S' I'S^. ^%5i^-f%^% ^^^1^^ -5 10) On bars reading of Rule 15-A of the Rules 1976, it is clear that the quaiiiying services v.'ouid start from 5-9-1983 tiii the petitioner took voiuntary retirement. Taking the entire period into consideration, the proposai of the Principal, Govt. Degreee College, Sarangarh, Dist. Raigrh (Annexure P/6) is correct and the petitioner is entitled to grant of pension in terms of the Pension Ruies. !f the petitioner is entitled interest on the pensionary amount which became due, the same shali be payable to the petitioner in accordance with law immediateiy after application for voiuntary retirement came into foroe. •I ^,\) The petition is accordingiy aliowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- _ , SatisbK.Agnib°m Judge r'-