(264%k » x BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR. W.P.(S). $MO /2009(SB) Petitioner : Prem Das aged about 68 years S/o Jhengua, EX—Regular Gangman on Workcharge/Contingency paid Establishment, R/o Village Khapri, P.Oi Nawagarh, DisttDurg (CG) Versus. Respondentsy 1. State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, D.K.St Bhawan, P‘O. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Building & Road), Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.Gt) Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.) .x4. High Power Committee for Pension Claim Settlement & Retired Personnel, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, P.O. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) / 5. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts and Pension, Raipur Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTI- TUTION OF INDIA. $3? f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUYVZ“7" ..... ' WRIT PETITION S No.3140 of2099 By PETITIONER : Prem Das. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUIION OF {NDIA B: Hon’bl ri Satish K A m‘imtri Present: Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Bakshi, Government Advocaté for ihe State/respendems. 0R9EK (0RAL) (Passed 0x1 25‘ day of March, 2010) 1. The petitioner questions the order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner has been denied grant of ‘pensionary benetit. 2. Learend counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that eariier, the petitioner had tiled a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 2655 of 2008. the said petition was disposed of and the case of the petitioner was referred to the Committee constituted for the purpose of censidering the matters related topayment ofretiral dues. The Committee, vide its ofder dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure P/l) rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that the petitioner being a Work charged empioyee, has not completed 10 years of service, thus he is not entitled to any pension. 3. The issue with regard to grant ofpensionary benefit to the work charged and contingency paid empioyees came up for consideration before this Court in W.P. No. 4135/2004 (MA. Hakim v. State ofivfadhya Pradesh (Now CG.) d’c Others) wherein it was observed as under: “2. The petitioner claims pension on the basis of Rule 6(3) of MP/CG (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. Rule 6(3) provides that an absorption of \ temporary pensionabie employee post, the Withoiit service interruption rendered with against effect any from regular lbt \ Eanuary, 1974 onwards, if such service is of iessthan six r’\ / / S e Sh J. 2 years shall be taunted £01 pensmn as 1f such serwce was rendervd in a regular §ost 3. It is admitted that the petitionerwas absorbed as temporaly empioyee against regular pensionable post vide order dated 13 12 19)8 which is evident 110m the order of regularization dated 31 12 1998 (Amlcxure P/3) The regularization was $anted on compietlon of 25 years oi servwe 1n Work Charged Establishment Rules 6 of the Pension Rules 1979 provides for commencement of qualifying service for grant of Pension Rules 6 ofthe Rules 1979 is quoted below: “6. Commencement of qualifying service: - (1) Subject to the provisions of chapter III of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 of section IV of Madhya Pradesh New Pension Rules, 1951, as the case may be, for calculating qualifying service of a pennanent employee who retired as such, the service rendered with eft‘eet from the 1St January, 1959 onwards shall be counted. (2) On absorption of a permanent employee without ’inten'uption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from lst January, 1959 onwards shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post; (3) On absorption oftemporary employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect li'om lst January, 1974 onwards, if such service was rendered in a regular pos . " 4. Mr. Anju Ahuja, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondents/State is not in a position to produce any other circular except, the Pension Rules, 1979, which are applicable in the case 'of the petitioner. The contention of the respondent that the petitioner has not completed 10 years of service as regular employee is not supported by any Rule or circular, so as to disqualify work charged employee from grant of pension. From bare reading of the provisions of law, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to pension, as admissible, in accordance with the aforesaid Pension Rule. 197 ." 4. The aforesaid matter was taken up to the Supreme Court by the State Government in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No 19728/2006 The \ supreme Court dism1ssed the said specral leave petition on 08 12 2006 approvmg the order passed by this (,ourt 111MA Halal/n (supra) \ \ ‘WP(S) No. 2884 0162009 (Decided on 01,022010) u% 3 5. The afaresaid issue further came up for consideration in Jhumy‘a Baz' v. Staie of Chhattisgczrh & Others] and other connected matters, wherein the View taken in the case ofMA.Ha/‘dm (supra) was referred with approval. 6. Leamed counsel appearing for the State/respondents fairly submits that the issue with regard to grant ofpensionary benefits to the work charged contingency employee has been settled in cases ofJhum'ya Baz‘ (supra) andMAHakim (supra). 7. In View ofthe submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the ' order dated 17. 12.2008 (Annexure P/ 1) is quashed. The respondents are directed to compute pension of the petitioner in the light ofthe well settled principle of law, as aforestated in the case of Jhumy‘a Bai (supra) andMAHakim (supra). The order shall be complied with as early as possible, preferably within a period ofthree months. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. //’.L There shall be no order asto costs. Sdl- K- Ag‘“ ‘hotri garish Judge