High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPS/1403/2015disposed off

Seturam Dhurve v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ANR

2015-04-23Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1403 of 2015 • Seturam Dhurve S/O Shri Mayaram Dhurve Aged About 65 years R/O Village Jhadutola, P.O. Singhangarh, Tehsil & District Kawardha Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur

2. Director, Treasury, Accounts & Audit Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri YS Thakur, Dy. AG for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 23/04/2015

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 3-1-2004 thereafter he retired on 3112-2013, thereafter he retired on 31-12-2013.

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, the petitioners 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 decision as has been laid down by the Division Bench.

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 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.281/13 within a further period of three months.

JUDGE ashu