1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 4899 of 2008 Diwakar v. CEO and ors ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.S. Ghate, Adv for petitioner Mr P.D. Meghe, Adv for respondents 1 & 2 Coram : D.D. Sinha and A.P. Bhangale, JJ Dated : 30th March 2009 1. Heard Mr S.S. Ghate, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr P.D. Meghe, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2. Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of communication dated 8.2.2001 whereby total length of pensionable service of the petitioner has been held to be 32 years, 2 months and 11 days, whereas contention of the petitioner is that it should have been 33 years, 5 months and 7 days. 2. Considered the contentions canvassed by learned counsel for respective parties and perused provisions of rule 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982. 2 3. As per clause (c ) of rule 57, the Government servants who are paid from contingencies their services cannot be treated to be pensionable service. However, Note-1 contemplates that in case of employees paid from contingencies who are subsequently brought on a regular pensionable establishment by conversion of their posts, one-half of their previous continuous service swhall be allowed to count for pension. 4. Mr P.D. Meghe, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 has brought to our notice Government Resolution dated 10th July 1974 which deals with the employees working on work-charge, daily-rated and contingency establishment under the Zilla Parishad who can be brought on regular establishment. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working on work-charge establishment since 1967 to 1971. In the year 1971 petitioner was brought on regular establishment and, therefore, pensionable service of the petitioner was calculated by respondents no. 1 and 2 in view of Note-1 of rule 57 and decision in this regard accordingly was taken by the respondents. In view of the above-referred facts, it is difficult for us to accept the contention of the petitioner that the service rendered by the petitioner was pensionable Consequently, no case is made out for showing indulgency. Writ Petition is dismissed. 3 Judge. Judge. hsj