3 IN THE M.P. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENCH RAIPUR 4^Cs;34te^y Sf^(^^ 3o' fo0^ P';^T^ O.A.No. APPLICANT }^ ^ RESPONDENTS /2000 Nakul Prasad Verma S/o Late Pardeshi Ram Verma aged 64 years, Retired Jeep Driver, Gram Jarve, P.0. Jarve Tah. Baloda Bazar, Distrlct Raipur. VERSUS l^<~SState of Madhya Pradesh through Secretary Water Resources Department ' Mantralaya, BHOPAL. 2^-Superintending Engineer Mahanadi Circle, Water Resources Department, RAIPUR. Executive Engineer, Water Management Division No.2 RAIPUR Joint Director of Treasury and Acctt. Pension-Branch, Ralpur. APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT, 1985. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. WRIT PETITION fSl N0.3412/2005 Nakul Prasad Verma Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Present: - Shri Anil Singh Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer for tiie State/respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 30th June. 2010) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. (2) Case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed as DaHy Wage Employee with effect from 01-03-1979, and thereafter. he was regularized by order dated 31-(^-1998 in the Work-Charged Contingency Paid Establishment, in which, he was continued until his retirement with effect from 31-07-1995. Thereafter, the petitioner claimed for grant of pension which has been rejected bythe respondents vide memo dated 14-06-20CX) (Annexure A-9) on ttie ground that the petitioner did not complete minimum 10 years of quatifyjng period of service, and therefore, his servjce are not pensionable. and he is not en^tlect to pension. Period of employment with effect from 01-03-1979 to 27-06-1988 was not included for the purp<»eof reckonmg qualifying service for ttie purpose of examining petitioner's claim for pensionable service. (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioner submite that the issue whether the period of service rendered as Daily wage employee before regularization in the Work Charged Contingency Establishment could be counted for the purpose of pension and included as qualifying service has been decided by this Court in the case of M. A. Hakfm versus State of Madhya ffracfesft (now C.Q.) and Ottfers, (Writ Petition No.4135 of 2004) on 26al ofAugust, 2006 on identical facts and circumstances as in the present case. Later on. relying upon the various judgments in the case of M. A. Haklm (supra), another order was passed in Jhuniya Bai Vs. State of Chhs^tisgailf and Others, (Wrtt Petltion (S) No.2884 of 2009 and batch of petltions)on 01st day ofFebruary, 2WO on —'L- identical facts and circumstances and observing that order dated 28-08-2006 eariier passed in Writ Petition No.4135 of2004 was taken to the Supreme Court by the State Government and the S.L.P. was dismissed on 08-12-2006, and thereaflsr, Review Petition was also dismissed. (4) Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though issue raised in this petition, has already been settled by thjs Court, it vwuld require proper examination and verification s®to whether the (wtitjoner is identically placed as the petitioners in various cases namely M. A. Hakim andJhunfyaBalfsupra). (5) In view of the submission made by leamed counsel for the parties before this Court and taking into consideration that the issue vnth regard to entitlement of pension prior to regular employment in the Work-Charged Contingency Paid Establishment for the purpose of counting the qualilying service having been setUed by this Court, It would be proper to direct respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid decisions in the case of M A. Hakim and Jhuniya Bai fsupra). tf upon verification of facts as pleaded m the petition, ttie petitioner is found Jdentically placed, he wiU also be entftled to same benefits for the purpose of counting period of employment prtor to regular employment for the purpose of pension as ordered by this Court in the cases of M. A. Hakim and Jhunlya Bai fsupra). The respondent authority shall take necessary decision within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copyofthisorder. (6) With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Jude Tumane