Kunwar Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1414 of 2015 • Kunwar Lal S/o Late Shobit Ram, Aged About 63 years, Retired Carpenter, Public Works Department, Khairagarh, District Rajnajdgaon Chhattisgarh R/O Ward No. 17, Shiv Mandir Road, New Bus Stand, P.S. & Tahsil Khairagarh, Civil And Revenue District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Engineer In Chief (B/R), Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).

3. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department ( B/R), Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

4. Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Department ( B/R), Sub Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri FS Khare, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri S. Mazid Ali, PL 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 employees of work charged and contingency paid establishment, having been earlier appointed as daily wager and thereafter attained the status of temporary employees, in accordance with the Chhattisgarh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules, 1979'). The petitioner was regularized on 19-8-2008 and thereafter

retired on 30.11.2014.

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