Sfiu^ •S861 teyWE UAtV.iE StyjBJJiJS Jte£l2 6| LilR fiJtBffi fc^lK ife^lfcK ••• jOJSOttg ^hfcU 'UJiM ^EbU 'fc^ fed leig s^a *&M6^ fi&Efi '4^JMy^ usiy. ifi^. ttlfc ^fa hpj.f^j.il 'Afitiiji 'kiitS usiy. 'ifi^j. ayi^ tyi.Q? joJSotef sSttll '^Eizu 'ASfiia -uis 'fc&US OJlOh ''"FtrrT.rp-,,.., '' •'";l':T;n»iF| iS a^iie ••• Co 2&4). ^OJSOttj felliMfctel^ (fcL2ilaS^lt (12UaJl<ti?»' •^lfel^ tegy. l^ 'liS •4S^4,& 66/ ^^'k'^K ^ 'yn. iva eAtet±$&U 'lBAAt^.ffi ftt4Bll&fi@J50tt fittB 'ieunquji 'iUfa' a]sis 'cf 'f.t 'J£0'--;e.3y Mj "^JiiVyyif:^ 'w <i ^••^••.••2.g(^po;p<»;.^ "€'t&'ON, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri IVIanlndra MohanShrivastawa.s.l. PETITIONER ESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (Sl N0.2956/200S J.D.Jha ,,£.w,^ Versus State of Madhya Piadesh and 2 others Present: - Shri Somkant Verma, counsel forthe petffiorier. : T Shri BhaslarPs/asi, Panel Lawyerfor the Stata(res|iond6nS, ORAL OREffiR.... ' . ,,.^-^.^,..,.^.^ (Passed on 3"1 day of May,2010) Petitioner has approached this Court ^gria»ed on account of non- inclusion of peiiod ft-ont 14/^/1959 to 31X)3/1963 for the purposes of penshmf as qualifying service. 2. Facts of this case are in narrow encompass. PetiUoner while wuricing as' te^cher in a Janpad school was absolved in Govemment service eonsee^ients upon the school being taken over by Ihe Govemment. AKei' at»CTii»tiondK seryice, petitioner continued in senrice untll hls retirement on 201Q&i)980. UKtien the pension case of the petitioner was finalfzed on 31/08/1898, fortheputposes of calculating the pensionable period, the period in dispute l.s. from 14/OSf't9 to 31/03/1963 was not counted. Petitroner submitted representaflon Qft 08/02/1989 praying that the senrice rendered by hlm under Janpad prior tOs absorpUon may aiso be counted as pensionable senflce. The griwance having •remained unredressed.the petittoner approached thls Court. », •—»^:..^ si A" ,;--<"*%. ';Ksesfc i wss^'J] K^'" ^ '"^RS^ 3. Submission of leamed counsel for the petffioner is that consequent uponi -.i»" taking over cf his service and absorption in Goyemment service, e entire period •'^•s.,^' - -i ofservice rendered by him underJanpad, which vras penaonabte service, pi^ght. to be Included. Referring to contente of his representatlon (Annexure A-2) dated 8/02/1990, ft is Submitted that the petitioner infonmed the Joint Director Publte, 3nstruction that he had deposited his contribution in Contributory Provldent Fund in respect of period from 14/05/1959 to 31/03/1963. Yet the aforosaid period has« been illegatly excluded from the qualHying service period for thetpurposes of grant of penston. Further submission of leamed counsel for the petitiQnei'afs that it was the obligaUon of the management to deduct and contributo towards C.R.BN scheme applicable in ttie schooi while being run under the Janpad, prior to "rts take over by the Government. It is also submittod that the Govermnentjws obliged to recover the necessary amount of contribuUon from Janpad if not already deposited, at the Ume of taldng over of the school and absorptlon ofthe petiBoner. ^; ^ 4. On the other hand, submission of leamed counsei for the re^sondent is that in the matter <rf grant of benefit of seivices rendered prior to absorptton, tor the purposes of pension, the State Govemment had came out witttthe (»licy vide its clrcular dated 15/01/1972 / 21/01/1972 (Annexure R-2) wheiein it was cleariy stipulated fhat in <ase the Govemment employee is claimingE benefit ef past service for the purposes of pension, he is requlred to depositihiss.fil^K contribution In respect ofthesaid peppd and if mstoagement has not depositod its contributfon with tiip Govemment, the same wlll be payabie by tte management by way of adjustment against grants payable to themanagementotf the schools. Furthersubmission is that as during 8ie dlsputad period, th»<^PJE. contribution of the peUtloner was not depostted, the period from 14/05^19S9to, ;•':-'"'%, "n.•».. V. g t, t.fe--:y I3f^l' 31/03/1963 was oot counted for ttiej»urposdsef pension. JThe aforesald issua—^ came up for consideraUon before tte Tribunal in O.A. hto.3635/1990 decided on a 22/05®?whereln the Tribunal relying to the judgment of M.P. Hi^i Court intbe -s case of C.A. Bhakhare Vs. State of M.P. and others 1987 MPU page 5(®held that the benefltss'of pastservices couid not be <fenied on the ground that /Twsessary deduction was not made by the management prior to theabsorption. 5. From the perusal of M.P. Contributory Provident Fund mte^ 1%5, tt feap . clear that the management was undar an obligatton to malw nece«saiyaw» deduction. The management having not made any deductton from ttae salatyaef 3 ns the pstiUoner as also having failed to deposit its own contribution, it has resulted 1n denial of statutory benefit to the peUUoner. Govemment drcutar dated 15/01/1972 / 21/01/1972 ^nnaxure R-2) also emphasizes that-ift-th^ management had not contributed its share, the same shall be adjusted from the - amount payable to the local bodyftom the Govemment. G-t In view of the aforesaid situdton and judgment of the M.P. High Court".! under idenUeal cireumstances particulariy with reference to Govemment circular dated 15/01/1972 / 2W1/1972 (Annexure R-2), this, petlUon is allowed. However, tfte benefit of past services would be admis»ible only when tha petitioner deposits his own contribution, if not already dep<»itedin respect ofthe period from 14/05/1959 to 31W3/63. In so far as contribution of management is concerned, it will be open for the Govemment to take such stfif»as are availabte p in view of cireular dated 15/01/1972 and 21/01/1972 (Annaure R-1) from ftie ccmcemediocalbody/itssuccessor. Nocosts. ; . ~~~ r;^—^~^ J"S lvasta^a