Chintaram Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh And ORS

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPS No. 1766 of 2015 • Chintaram Yadav, S/o Late Shri Manglu Ram Yadav, Aged About 63 years, Chowkidar, R/o Village Soram, Tehsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahandi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Executive Engineer, Water Management Division, Rudri, Code No. 38 Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

3. Joint Director, Office of Treasury Accounts and Pension, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri PP Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri S. Mazid Ali, PL for the State Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 11/05/2015 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 01-02-1996 and thereafter retired on 31-3-2014.

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, 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, subject to verification of facts or any other order passed by the Division Bench or the Supreme Court on the issue.

JUDGE ashu