Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Ramrati Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 7636 of 2013
BETWEEN:-
SMT. RAMRATI AHIRWAR W/O LATE SHRI MATADIN
AHIRWAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, LADIYANA
MOHALLA WARD NO. 8 (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI DEEPAK SAHU - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC HEALTH &
ENGINEERING DEPTT. VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH &
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, GWALIOR ZONE,
DISTT.GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH &
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, DISTT.
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER DISTT.
CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DHEERAJ TIWARI - PANEL LAWYER)
T h is petition coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition is filed being aggrieved of the order dated 12/10/2010 Annexure P-3 passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 09-05-2024 11:09:59 2 Department, District Chhatarpur.
In the second round of litigation, rejecting petitioner's representation for grant of family pension in terms of the earlier orders passed in the Lok Adalat in W.P. (s) No. 10220/2007 (s) Smt. Ramrati Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P. & others decided on 30/01/2010 on the ground that petitioner's husband was a member of contributory pension under the C.P.F. scheme and, therefore, he is not entitled to the family pension.
Brief facts of the present case are that petitioner's husband was appointed as a 'Mistri' on 16/06/1970. He died while working on the post of Driver on 5/04/1985. In the first round of litigation, petitioner's claim for grant of family pension was denied on the ground that her husband had not completed 15 years of qualifying service in terms of Rule 2 (c) of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.
Thereafter, it is pointed out that an amendment was carried out and vide notification dated 13/09/1982 published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra part-IV (ga), dated 26/12/1982 page 133, the proviso was added to clause (c) of Rule 2 and it reads as under:-
"Provided that in respect of the contingency paid employee for a Work Charge Employee who has attained the age of superannuation on or after 1st April, 1981, permanent employee means an employee who has completed ten years of service on or after 1st January, 1974."
Thus, it is evident that the qualifying service for grant of family pension is ten years and this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by this High Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 09-05-2024 11:09:59 3 Court in Surendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. and others 2005 (3) M.P.L.J. 385 wherein it is held that an employee on completion of requisite ten years of qualifying service automatically becomes a member as envisaged in Rule 2 (c) and becomes entitled to pension.
In view of such facts and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Motilal (2013) 1 MPWN 110 (DB) wherein it is held that amended Rules reduced qualifying service to ten years but it is applicable to an employee who was in service on 1/04/1981.
Thus, it is evident that since petitioner's husband was in service till 5/04/1985, qualifying service for him will be ten years and since he had admittedly completed ten years of qualifying service, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Chaturvedi (supra), petitioner is entitled to the family pension.
Accordingly, respondents are directed to grant family pension to the petitioner within thirty days of receipt of certified copy of this order along with the arrears of pension failing which petitioner shall be free to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.
In above terms, the petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE vy Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Signing time: 09-05-2024 11:09:59