Raghunandan Prasad Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6844 of 2019 Raghunandan Prasad Soni S/o Late Shri Balaram Prasad Soni Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Jagdalla (Shankar Nagar), District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Water Resources Department Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Director, Treasury, Account And Pension Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Accountant General, State Of Chhattisgarh Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ----Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. S.P. Kale, Advocate For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/09/2019

1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. 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 27.08.2008 and thereafter retired on 31.08.2015.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 subject to verification decide the petitioner's entitlement to pension, depending upon and after the outcome of Review Petition No.61/2015.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved