SuggLt ghan’it . (@6751, IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) \D WRIT PETmON (S) No. (23A? /203 :/’ CHAITI BAI, D/o Late Shri Dasrath, Age 62 Year§, Occupation — Service as Permanent Gangman R/o Behind Shri Krishna Gosnaia Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District — Raipur (C.G.) PETITIONER VERSUS ' RESPONDENTS :/ 1. State cf Chhatiisgarh Through r Its Secretary, Department of . ii I *Publlc Works Mantraiaya D K I : i I _ , S Bhayan Ralpur(CG) i W v.\ /2. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. ’ Department, Sub - Division No. 1 Raipur(C.G.) / 3. Sub Divisionai Officer, P.W.D. Department, Sub Division No. 1, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UN DER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION v \ OF INDIA i }G RH BILASPUR H COURT OF CHHATTISGA 2010 P I ‘ Versus I ‘DENTS “ State of Chhattlsgc t RESPON rh & Ohers And , W P (S) Nos 278 279 280 281 282 and 283 o‘f'2010‘ Writ petitions under Amcle 226 of the Constlulon of Inia ingle Bench Hon ble Shrl Satlsh K li WRIT PETITION (S) NO 727 O ETITIONER _ - I l = Lakhanlal ( tt d) ' S kgnlhotrl J dy l fr Shrl Anup Mazumdar and Shrl Yogesh Pane, counse o the respective petltloners ' ' ‘ate‘Geheral for the State. i {1- I V lnce WP(S) Nos 727 278 279 280 281 282 and 283 2010 Involve the same question of law asto weer h I etitioners are entitled to pensron from the respectrve aes o I heir retirement In accordance wrth the rovrslons of h t p te P/CG (Work Cha e and Contlngency Pad Employees ensron l Rules acts of these l are being disposed of by this common orde l Itlons are also common and as such the p y, M i ) P 1’. f w r The facts In nutshell as prolecteol by the eltloners are th t at he etltloners have bee1 'appomted as T ‘e el peraor an t p Wl Ot d Galngman on daily wages basrs" ‘ .S: of hth te p dt f geltloners were made to retire fr serVIces In e ea l d 209 resectivel 0 py ‘ereaer the penSIon orders have not been reles I el T ft aed n thr f§ t n y a te services f minimum .periodof 1‘0,yearsl as work 'harged employees. ue wi regar rat of pensionar eneflt to the w h nen p py me for c dation befor h C o’3 o 204 (M. km v.» stae of adhya Pradesh (Now CG. hers wherein It was oserved as under 0 0 09 2009 0 i avour on he groud that the hve not r ndered hir er; a SS th d to gn y b drk carged and contigcy aid emloees ca» up a: :sier e tis ourt in W.Pr. N.415 f 0 A Hai t M ) & it) b “ Th s d s 1 f t n a e s , 1 c Is of less han s b f s g t 3 It d ab r rt d e \ P n c Wk ‘C 6 of te P d fr ’c t «o Rules 1979 is i 2 e petitioner claims penSIon on the baSI of Rule 6(3) of MP/CG (Workcharged an Contingency Paid Employees) Pensron Rule 979 Rule 6(3) provrdes that an absorption o emporary employee Without Interruptio gainst any regular penSIonaibIe post th ervrce rendered wrth effect from 15' January 974 onwards If such serVIe t ix years shall e counted forzpenSIon as I uch serVIce was rendered In a reular pos Is amitted that the petitioner was sorbed as temporary employee against egular pen3ionable post Vide order dated 1 he order f 3 12 1998 which is eVIdent from t o egularizaion ated 31 12 1998 (Annexur /3) The regularization was granted o ompletion of 25 years of serVIce in or harged Establishment Rules h enSIon Rules 1979 prowes o ommencement of qualifying serwce for gran f PenSIon Rules 6 of the uoted belo q w “ omencemen ualiyin ervce (1) Subject to the prOVI3ions o hapter lll of the Madhya Pradesh CiVil erVIces (Pensron) Rules 1976 ection IV of Madhya Pradesh Ne ension Rules, 1951 as the case ma e for calculating qualifying serwce of\ ermanent emloyee who retired a J ‘05 209 20 209 2009 a l t om thel th yr 2 6. Cmt of qfg ‘si f c K S of ' s w ' P y b a p p s Ice renered With effec anuar, 1959 onward ption of a permanen out‘i ‘ Interr- ptron again ' ,January, 1959 o d nwards sh ' ll be counte rendered In a reg post ular orptio f emporar out Interrutlon agains n Ionable post h from 15 anuary, 1974 o wards If such servr th pp ( o e State Government In SpeCIaI Leave to eal CIVII) N 97 of 2006 The Supreme Court dismissed the sai t og th der wn e. or he serV d t from t'he 1s‘ Jy s ‘ shall be counted (2) On absor f l employee wrth st (3) On absn o ty employee wrth p t any regular “e te ": J ce , 1? d Jhun/y Bal v State of Chhamsarh & Others an oth g d er oned mattes wheremhe View ta e m the case of cnect r, ‘rtr n Mki AiHam (p) sura was’rerred ef with ar pp Vl. a f , L ppg f th St Ip‘t firly‘ earned counsel aeann or e ta resondens ‘a V t Is ta e Issue Wi rear o an o enSIonar t ht th th gd t g t f py f t h hd t l h ben be its o te work carge :oonlngency mpoyee as e ttled b thls Court In MA Hakim sura and Jhunla B ccordmg e wri etltlons are isose o In View o decision of thlsCourt rendre ' e JhihiyBi (‘p‘). - Tp’dtathis ditd ' l‘aua sura he‘resonenuortie are rece d the ndlbjt ftin ft, li p of o eefu,‘suec to veriicao acs n resect , *tdi‘d pti; ithi pio fEith th fm he-.in‘ivua| eitoner wn a er oree mons ro the d f eeit f f h er. ate o rcp o acopy o tis ord () supra » " ( ( 20) WPS) N 2884 or2009 Decided on 01.0.201 as y (p) y ar Aly, th t p dpd f f the In MAHakIm (supra) and t