AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 30.12.2016. By this order, it was held that petitioner will not be entitled to get compassionate appointment and also benefits of Insurance Scheme of 2003 until writ petition filed by the petitioner's husband i.e. WP No.16859/2011 is not decided.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that petitioner's husband was appointed as a Chowkidar. Thereafter, he was regularized in service on 17.12.2008. He was regularized as Forest Guard. After his regularization, his service was de-regularized vide order dated 26.09.2011. The said order was challenged by husband of petitioner by filing WP No.16859/2011. It is submitted by the counsel that said writ petition has already been decided by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2018. This Court has held that order dated 26.09.2011, by which the petitioner was de-regularized cannot be sustained and the said order was set aside. Since order of de-regularization of petitioner has been set aside by order dated 23.01.2018, now the husband of petitioner has acquired the status of a regular employee as Forest Guard. In view of that he will be entitled to get pensionary benefits and consequential benefits.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in 2003 (4) MPLJ 376, Shrikarishna Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. and Others. In the said judgment, it has been held that "M.P. (Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 has been amended and as per the Amend Rule 6 (3), an employee who is engaged as a contingency paid employee will be entitled to get pension if he has worked continuously for period of six years as regular employee. In view of law laid down by this Court in case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava (Supra), petitioner's husband is also entitled to get full pension and pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by him that petitioner was de-regularized and therefore, he is not entitled to get pensionary benefits.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the case law laid down in case of Shrikarishna Shrivastava (supra) petitioner succeed in this writ petition. De-regularization order of petitioner has already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 03.10.2011 in WP No.16859/2011. Considering the provision of M.P. (Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, petitioner's husband is found to be entitled for grant of pensionary and other consequential benefits as he is in regular service for more than six years. Respondents may take necessary steps for release of pensionary and other benefits to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.