Madhya Pradesh High Court
Parimal Dohare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 November, 2017
1
W.A. No. 441/2017
(Parimal Dohare Vs. State of M.P. & Others)
Gwalior, Dated : 14.11.2017
Shri P.D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the
appellant.
Shri Harish Dixit, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents/State.
Though an application for condonation of delay has been filed, however, as per Office note there is no delay in filing the appeal. As such I.A. No. 13981/2017 has rendered redundant as would warrant any order.
This appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 28.07.2017 passed in W.P. No. 4662/2017, whereby learned Single Judge taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has rendered services from 16.04.1982 to 26.07.1988 on work charged contingency paid establishment before his absorption in the regular establishment, has directed four counting of said period for the purpose of pension on his superannuation with effect from 31.12.2015.
The exception is taken to the extent that the writ court has confined the counting of said period only for the purpose of pension and not for the gratuity.
Evident it is that the benefit of engaging of service rendered on work charged and contingency paid establishment has been extended on the anvil of stipulations contended in Madhya Pradesh (Work 2 Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and more particularly Sub Rule 3 of Rule 6 of the said Rules.
Learned counsel for the appellant is at loss to point out from the Rules that these Rules also cover the gratuity.
When the impugned order is tested on the anvil of above analysis, we do not find any error as would warrant an indulgence.
Consequently, appeal stands dismissed.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
Aman