,^ "^ ~ „j^'^.^ •• ^e^ ^e.^ ....--"° (^ ^' !--. s...t-1-'-" c^^- 3TQ- &...--•• IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.} W.P. (s) No. XS ^32008 Petitioner5 . Respondents 1. Smt. Shail Bai aged 64 years Widow oflate Shri Jagannath, Retired Peon, Tilak Primary School, Durg. ^" 2. Shrimati Kusum Bai aged 64 years widow of Ram Sanehi, Retired peon, Narra Girl's Primary School, Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. "Ivlunicipal Corporation, Durg Through the Municipal Corporation, Durg. 2. The State Govemment ofChhattisharh, Through the Secretary, Town Administration & Development Deptt. D.K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS r -V HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition fS) No. 3539 of 2008 Petitioners Smt. Shail Bai 85 another Versus Respondents Municipal Corporation, Durg 85 another WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri B. K. Chakraborty, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri A. S. Kachwaha, Advocate for the respondent No.l. Shri N. N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No,2. O RD E R (Oral) (Passed on this 18th day of March, 2010) Heard. 1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay them admissible pension in accordance with Rule 6 (3) of the Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short 'Pension Rules, 1979'). 2. Brief facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner No.l (Smt. Shail Bai) was appointed on daily wages on 1.5.1974, she was regularized on 26.4.1997 and retired from service on 31.1.2007. The petitioner No.2 (Smt. Kusum Bai) was appointed on 22.7.1975 on daily wages, she was regularized on 26.4.1997 and retired from sen^ice on 30.6.2005, 3. According to the respondent No.l, on the date of their retirements, the petitioners had not completed the requisite period of 10 years service on regular basis to make them eligible ^ for grant of pension under the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1979. Thus, they are not entitled to the same. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in M. A. Hakim v. State of Madhya Pradesh (now C.G.) and others (W.P.No. 4135 of 2004 decided on 28.8.2006) this Court observed that in view of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979 the petitioners whether a permanent employee or temporary employee, if they continued against any regular pensionable post w.e.f. 1.1.1959 in case of permanent employee and w.e.f. 1.1.1974 in case of temporary employee, were entitled to pension. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have continuously discharged their duties for more than 30 years without any interruption. This Court in Jhuniya Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh SB others (W.P.(S) No. 2884 of 2006 decided on 1.2.2010) has held that "On perusal of Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979 it appears that on absorption of a permanent employee, if he has continued without interruption against any regular pensionaiy post w.e.f. 1-1-1959, the pension shall be counted from the date of initial appointment. In case of absorption of temporary employee working against any regular pensionable post w.e.f. 1-1-1974, if such service is less than sbc years rendered in a regular post, shall be counted for pension, as if such ser^ice was rendered in a regular post/' In para 18 of the order, this Court observed as under: "18. In view of foregoing, the respondent authorities are directed to examine the cases of the petitioners asto whether they have been appointed as contingency paid work-charged employee against any regular post. If this is the case, the ^^-^®^ /'^f^ff%,. i S^ '^ *y, &M..' i (hih. S ^ ^ "^^ ^J.J '^'^ws^^'''" 8. petitioners shall be entitled to get the pension from the date of their retirement, ifview of the provisons contained under Rule 6 ofthe Pension Rules, 1979" The petition is vague and does not supply complete information about the nature of appointment and whether the petitioners were appointed against regular post to claim pension from the date of initial appointment. If their period is counted from the date of regularization, as is the practice, the.petitioners are not entitled to pension as they do not complete 10 years period, as is evident from the details given by the Municipal Corporation/Respondent No.l in its return, which reads as under: Particulars Thakur Petitioner Petitioner No.l No.2 Smt. Shail Smt. Kusum Bai Bai Worked as Dailywager from 01.05.1974 22.07.1975 DateofBirth 25.01.1945 05.06.1943 Date of Regularization 26.04.1997 26.04.1997 Date pf Joining in service on 02.05.1997 06.05.1997 regular basis Date of retirement 31.01.2007 30.06.2005 Service Length 9 Years 8 Years 9 Months 1 Month 24 Days Having regard to the facts situation of the case, it is not possible for this Court to come to any conclusion on the basis of the material supplied by the parties. Thus, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the decisions of this Court in M. A. Hakim and Jhuniya Bai (supra) and any other decision, which may be made available by the petitioners at the time of consideration of their cases. For the reasons stated above the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. — Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge