RAM SEWAK DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought a direction against the respondents to sanction and release the pension and to command the respondents to make arrears of pension after counting the period of service as daily wager from contingency fund rendered by the petitioner prior to the regularisation. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on daily wages as Labour (Mat) with effect from 30.7.1964. On completion of 25 years of service he was regularised in the year 1997 and on attaining the age of superannuation, he stood retired. It is further contention of the petitioner, that under the Madhya Pradesh (Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, the period of service rendered by an employee from work charge/contingency fund and later on regularised as work charged employee is entitled to get counted such period for the purpose of pension. The law in this respect has been well settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. And others, 2003 4 MPLJ 376] wherein it has been categorically held by this Court that if the period of service is to be counted, in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules aforesaid, the previous services rendered as muster roll employees are required to be counted and then it has to be assessed whether an incumbent regularised subsequently in the work charged contingency establishment would be entitled to grant of pension or not. This Court in the case of Smt. Shyama Bai Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2007 2 MPHT 51], has laid down the similar provisions of law in terms of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava . Various other petitions have been decide by this Court by passing the orders on different dates, a well reasoned order has been passed in Writ Petition (s) No. 2698/2003, Lallan Bai Vs. State of M.P. and two others, on 17.11.2004. All these aspects have been duly considered, the provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules aforesaid as also the Rule 47 of the Rules where the contributory family pension is prescribed, have been interpreted by this Court, and it has been held that such employees would not only be entitled to grant of regular pension as per the Rules aforesaid, but the dependent would also be entitled to grant of family pension. These provisions again have been looked into by this Court in the case of Rahisa Begum Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2010 4 MPLJ 332].

(2.) Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to fix the pension of the petitioner accordingly and to settle the post retiral dues within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and to release the same along with interest @ 6% per annum. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.