Bhikarilal Kahar vs State of M.P. and Others

Heard. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order dt. 4.1.2012 passed in W.A. No. 702/2011.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier petitioner was appointed on a regular post, he was disengaged. Thereafter, subsequently he had been taken back in service, hence, the period for which the petitioner was out of employment be counted for the purpose of pension.

The petitioner employee was engaged initially on a minimum fixed pay of Rs. 169/- per month for a period of six months. After completing near about 8-10 months, his services were terminated vide order dt. 16.10.1980. He was taken back in service vide another order dt. 29.10.1988. During entire service career, the petitioner did not claim counting of the period when he was out of employment. After retirement, he had claimed that he is entitled to count entire period of service from the date of initial appointment i.e. 17.9.1979 up to the date of RP 30/2012 2 retirement for the purpose of pension.

We have clearly held that the petitioner was not eligible for the aforesaid benefit because his initial appointment was not a regular appointment. The petitioner was appointed initially on 17.9.1979 for a fixed period. Thereafter his employment was discontinued and he had been taken back in service after delay of near about 8 years on 29.10.1988. He accepted the appointment and continued in service up to the date of retirement. He had never been given seniority from the date of initial appointment.

In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the order passed by this court does not call for any interference. There is no error apparent on the face of the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions relied on the following judgments :-

(i) Raghunath Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another,

(ii) Babu Singh and Another Vs. Central Provident Fund Commissioner and Others,

(iii) Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. II and Another,

(iv) Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. Ed.) and Others,

(v) Deep Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and Another,

The aforesaid judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts. Hence, we do not find any merit in this review petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.