Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chen Lal Bisen vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 1 February, 2012
1
W.P. No.17495/2010
1/2/2012:
Ku. Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S. K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Petitioner was working as a daily wages employee and was thereafter brought in the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment and after completing the age of superannuation has been retired on 31.3.2010. However, while retirement, the petitioner has not completed the minimum qualifying service of 10 years in the Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment and therefore, pension is not granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, contending that the period spent by the petitioner in the capacity as a daily wages employee be also counted for grant of pensionary benefit and placing reliance on certain judgments earlier decided by this Court with regard to payment of pension to the similarly situated employees, petitioner has filed this petition.
The question with regard to payment of pension to the daily wages employee has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case o Mamta Shukla Vs. State of M.P. - 2011(3) MPLJ 210 :: equivalent 2011 ILR MP 1807 and keeping in view the judgment of Full Bench in the aforesaid case as petitioner has not completed the qualifying period of 10 years, benefit cannot be extended to the petitioner.
2Accordingly, finding the case of the petitioner to be covered by the decision of Full Bench in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) and similar claim is already rejected by this Court, this petition is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.m i shra