Churu Das v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 5406 of 2017 Churu Das S/o Late Tibhau Das, Aged About 67 Years R/o Barpali, Dongribhata, Block Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantrayalaya, New Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

3. Superintendent Engineer, Public Works Department, Division Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

4. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts, And Pension, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri CJK Rao, Advocate For State :

Shri S.P. Kale, Dy.A.G.

S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 12/10/2017 Heard.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was the employee of work charged and contingency paid establishment, having been earlier appointed as daily wager and thereafter attained the status of temporary employee, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short "the Rules, 1979"). The petitioner was regularized on 6.4.2005 and thereafter retired on 31.3.2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner's past service, prior to the date of regularization, is not counted for the purposes of granting pension and as such, he has been declared ineligible for pension. Learned counsel would refer to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court decided on 26.02.2005 in Writ Appeal No.281/2013 and other connected

-2matters, wherein this Court has held that in view of the State Government's instructions dated 02.03.2005, petitioner's temporary service be taken into account to reckon pensionable service and the appellants of the said writ appeals were held entitled to pension under the Rules, 1979.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents would not dispute the legal position as has been laid down by the Division Bench.

4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off with a direction that on fresh representation being filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks, the respondents shall decide petitioner's entitlement to pension, in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in Writ Appeal No.281/2013 within a further period of three months, subject to verification of facts or any other order passed by the Division Bench or the Supreme Court on the issue. Sd/-/-/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Praveen