Bahur Singh Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 3018 of 2015 • Bahur Singh Sahu S/o Halalkhor Sahu Aged About 66 Years Village Nagri, Police Station And Tahsil Nagri, Civil And Revenue District- Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh).

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Project Water Resource Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

2. Chief Engineer Water Resource Department Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

3. Executive Engineer Water Resource Department, W. M. Division Rudri, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh)

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Water Resource Department Division Nagri, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate For Respondents-State :

Shri Shashank Thakur, GA for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 19/08/2015

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 24.03.2007 and thereafter retired on

30.09.2011.

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 26-2-2015 in Writ Appeal No.281/13 and other connected matters, wherein this Court has held that in view of the State Government's instructions dated 2-3-2005, 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 State counsel would not dispute the decision rendered by the Division Bench, however, he would submit that the State Government has preferred Review Petition No.61/2015 before the Division Bench in which, notices have been issued to the other side. He would submit that based on the outcome of the review petition, the matter shall be considered by the competent authority.

4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that on fresh representation being filed by the petitioner, within a period of 4 weeks, the respondents shall decide the petitioner's entitlement to pension, depending upon and after the outcome of Review Petition No.61/2015. Sd/- JUDGE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA ashu