Ram Nihore Tiwari vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the order Annexure P/5 dated 11.4.2007 passed by respondent No.3 Joint Director, Treasury Accounts & Pension, Rewa Division, Rewa.

By the said order, the claim of petitioner for grant of pension was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not completed ten years of service as per Rule 43 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is mentioned in the order that petitioner has been regularized in the establishment of the contingency fund on 20.10.1987 and thereafter he retired from service on 31.7.1994. Petitioner has only completed 6 years, 9 months and 12 days of service as a regular employee, who is being paid salary from the contingency fund. As per Rule 6(3) of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, if an employee has worked without any break on regular pensionable post and if he has been absorbed on the post and has completed more than 6 years of such service then he is entitled to get pension. Petitioner has not been absorbed on regular pensionable post and as per Rule 2(c), he has not completed 10 years of service and hence he is not entitled to get pension.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been regularized on the post of Driver on 15.10.1987.

As the petitioner has been regularized on the post of Driver and he continued on the said post till his superannuation, now the respondents cannot contend that the post of petitioner was not sanctioned and vacant post. Petitioner has already been regularized on the post of Driver vide order dated 15.10.1987 and, therefore, he is entitled to get pension.

Learned Government Advocate for the State has relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Mamta Shukla Versus State of M.P. & Others reported in 2011 (3) M.P.H.T 81 (FB) to contend that the benefit of pension is to be extended only to those work charged and contingency paid employees, who have been recruited in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 1977.

In the present case, the Full Bench Judgment rendered in Smt. Mamta Shukla (supra) is not applicable because petitioner has been regularized on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, therefore, it cannot be said that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the Recruitment Rules and it was not on sanctioned and vacant post. Petitioner has already completed more than six years of service in the department and as per Rule 6, he is entitled to pension.

Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

The impugned order Annexure P/5 dated 11.4.2007 passed by respondent No.3 Joint Director, Treasury Accounts & Pension, Rewa Division, Rewa is quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and make payment of the pension to him with all consequential benefits.

With  the  aforesaid  observations,  this  writ  petition  stands allowed & disposed of.