Bhukhuram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3737 of 2017

1. Bhukhuram S/o Jagdish, Aged About 54 Years R/o Ausar, Post Ranitarai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

2. Bisauha Ram, S/o Ramlal, Aged About 54 Years R/o Karela, Post Karela, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Engineer-In- Chief, Water Resources Department, Sinhawa Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

3. Chief- Engineer, Mahanadi Godawari Kachar Project Water Resources Department Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department Tandula Sub Division 1 Adamabad Block Ranitarai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the petitioner/s. Shri S.P.Kale, Dy.A.G. for the State.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 11/08/2017 Heard.

1.

The petitioners, who are working under the respondents in Work Charged and Contingency Paid Establishment, have filed this petition for a direction to respondents to consider petitioners' claim for reckoning the period of services rendered by them for the purposes of grant of pension under the Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. 2.

It is submitted that though the petitioners have been given a regular employment in the Contingency Establishment with regular scale of pay, in view of

the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.281 of 2013 (Lakhanram Sahu and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) and other connected writ appeals decided on 26.02.2015, the period of services rendered as temporary service, as considered in the aforesaid decision, is liable to be counted for the purposes of pension. It is submitted that the present petition has been filed by the petitioners though they are presently continuing in employment, apprehending that the services prior to 2008 may not be counted for the purposes of pension.

3.

Learned State counsel would submit that at present, apprehension of the petitioners is not well founded. It is submitted that the legal issue has been settled by this Court in the case of Lakhanram Sahu (supra) and if the petitioners have any such claim, the authority would consider the aspect and the petitioners would have a cause of action in case, the benefits to which they are entitled under the law is not granted at the time of their retirement.

4.

As the legal issue raised in the petition has already been settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lakhanram Sahu (supra), the respondents shall prepare the petitioners' pension case by giving appropriate treatment to the period of services of the petitioners applying the law laid down in the case of Lakhanram Sahu (supra).

5.

The petition is disposed off.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Deepti