Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sarita Vishwakarma vs The Municipal Corporation on 1 August, 2019
1 WP-8498-2018
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-8498-2018
(SMT. SARITA VISHWAKARMA Vs THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION)
Jabalpur, Dated : 01-08-2019
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tanya Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents.
Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 22.02.2018 contained in Annexure P-7.
Vide impugned order dated 22.02.2018 the claim of petitioner was rejected for grant of pension/family pension on the ground that as per the Madhya Pradesh Pension Rules, 1976 Rule 43(2) 10 years service is essential for grant of pension.
Deceased superannuated from service on 31.03.2008. He was regularized in service on 16.12.2003 and he had completed 4 years 3 months and 15 days service. On this ground his representation for grant of pension was rejected. He was granted gratuity by Additional Director (Finance), Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
Petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 22.02.2018 on the ground that he was appointed in the year 1983 in the temporary capacity under Workcharged Contingency Services and was regularized on 16.12.2003. The period of service rendered by him as contingency paid employee will be counted towards qualifying service for the purposes of pensionery benefits.
Respondents filed reply in this case and averred that services rendered by deceased before being regularized cannot be counted as qualifying service for grant of pension. Respondents denied that petitioner will get benefit of Madhya Pradesh Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979. Reliance on said rule was misplaced as said rule will not be attracted in case of petitioner's husband. Petitioner's husband was a daily wager in the Corporation on the post of Driver and he was not Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees and, therefore, he will not get any benefit Digitally signed by PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Date: 08/08/2019 17:47:22 2 WP-8498-2018 and petition deserves to be dismissed.
Petitioner has filed rejoinder in this petition and stated that the case of petitioner's husband was not different from Sukhlal Vishwakarma who has been granted the benefit of family pension. It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner moved an application under R.T.I. Act to get the muster roll but same was not maintained by the respondents and he was not provided with the copy. It was submitted by him that deceased was a Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employee and he is entitled to get benefit under the said Rules. Along with rejoinder petitioner has filed the document as Annexure P-10 which is a list of persons who are working on Dainik Ekmev Vetan. Petitioner submits that aforesaid terminology means the daily wager contingency paid employee and on this basis petitioner makes a claim that her husband was a contingency paid employee. Petitioner has relied on one more document which is the order- sheet of the department in which the remuneration which is paid to petitioner's husband is shown to be paid from contingency paid fund. Document Anneuxre P-10 shows that petitioner's husband was being paid from contingency fund and, therefore, Madhya Pradesh Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 will be attracted in the case of the petitioner's husband. As per Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 it is laid down that on absorption of a permanent employee without interruption against the regular pensionable post the service rendered w.e.f. 01.01.1959 onwards shall be counted for pension if such service is rendered in a regular post. Petitioner was employed as a daily wager on the post of Driver in the year 1983 and he was regularized in service on 16.12.2003 and there was no break in service.
In view of the aforesaid facts it is clear that petitioner's husband was a Contingency Paid Employee as per Annexure P-10 filed along with the rejoinder and the services rendered by the petitioner's husband before his regularization will be counted towards the qualifying service.
Digitally signed by PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Date: 08/08/2019 17:47:223 WP-8498-2018 In view of the aforesaid, writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and it is directed to the respondents to count the services rendered by the husband of petitioner before his regularization as qualifying services for calculation of pensionery benefits and grant pensionery benefits and family pension to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE psm Digitally signed by PREM SHANKAR MISHRA Date: 08/08/2019 17:47:22