1 - Rajaram Patel S/o Krishna Chand Patel Aged About 64 Years Retired Amin v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Mantralaya
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39902 NAFR Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1654 of 2023 1 - Rajaram Patel S/o Krishna Chand Patel Aged About 64 Years Retired Amin (Patwari), Water Resources Department, R/o Vinoba Nagar, Modi Colony, M-Block, Ward No. 24, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Mahanadi Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources Department Shivnath Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Post Office And Police Station Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Chief Engineer, Hasdeo Kachhar, Water Resources Department, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Superintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Circle Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 6 - Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s)
Legal Reasoning
6. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent authorities for counting his entire service from the date of initial appointment (24.03.1980) until retirement (31.03.2020) for the purposes of computing pensionary benefits, and for payment of arrears and other consequential dues. Perusal of the record reveals that the core issue in this case is whether the service rendered by the petitioner as a daily wage employee prior to his regularization is liable to be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits. 7. In the matter of an Samaru Ram & Ors. Vs. State of C.G. passed in W.P.(S) No. 5142 of 2020, dated 18.01.2022, wherein writ Court observed as under :- “2. It is contended that the petitioners had joined their services as contingency paid employee. Later on they were regularized by the department and superannuated from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that the service of the petitioners as contingency paid/temporary employee prior to the date of regularization has not been counted for retiremental dues, however, that should have been counted. It is further contended that this issue has been decided by the Division 6 Bench of this Court in W.A. No.88 of 2019 and the following orders have been passed :- “5. Petitioner's services during his posting in the Contingency Paid Establishment were governed under the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977. Under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the said Rules, a contingency paid employee is accorded temporary status immediately upon completion of 5 years service. On representation by the Employees Union, the State Government issued a circular on 02.03.2005, which reads as follows: ^^NRrhlx<+ 'kklu foRr ,oa ;kstuk foHkkx ea=ky;] nkm dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj dekad 81@1056@fo@fu@04 jk;iqj] fnukad 2 ekpZ] 2005 izfr] 'kklu ds leLr foHkkx v/;{k] jktLo eaMy] fcykliqj] leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr ftyk/;{k Nrrhlx<+A fo"k; % dk;ZHkkfjr@vkdfLed fuf/k ls osru ikus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;fer LFkkiuk esa fu;qfDr gksus ij vgZrknk;h lsok dk fu/kkZj.kA NRrhlx<+ ¼dk;ZHkkfjr rFkk vkdfLedrk ls osru ikus okys deZpkjh½ ias'ku fu;e] 1979 ds fu;e 6¼3½ esa ;g izko/kku gS fd fdlh vLFkk;h deZpkjh ds] fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds fdlh Hkh fu;fer isa'ku ;ksX; in lafofy;u fd;s tkus ij] 1 tuojh] 1974 ls vkxs dh xbZ lsok] c'krsZ fd ,slh lsok 6 o"kZ ls de dh u gks] isa'ku ds fy; fxuh tk;sxh ekuksa fd ,slh lsok fdlh fu;fer in ij dh xbZ gksA ^^y?kqosru deZpkjh la?kksa }kjk jkT; 7 'kklu ds /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd dqN foHkkxksa }kjk vgZrkdkjh lsok dh x.kuk gsrq mDr fu;eksa ds rgr vLFkkbZ lsok dks 'kkfey ugha fd;k tk jgk gSA leLr foHkkxksa ls vuqjks/k gS fd os mDr izko/kkuksa dks vius v/khuLFk dk;kZy;ksa ds /;ku esa ykosa rFkk buds vkk/kkj ij vgZrkdkjh lsok dh x.kuk djrs gq, yafcr isa'ku izdj.kksa dk rRdky fujkdj.k djus gsrq funsZf'kr djsa A gLrk@& ¼lrh'k ik.Ms;½ milfpo] NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] foRr foHkkx” 6. In the above quoted circular, the State Government clearly directed that for counting the pensionable service, the period spent as temporary employee shall also be counted. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has also held in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava vs State of M. P. and others, reported in (2003) 4 MPLJ 376, that period of temporary service rendered by a contingency paid employee shall be counted in the pensionable service. 7. In view of the circular issued by the State Government and the law laid down by the Division Bench of the M. P. High Court in Shrikrishna Shrivastava (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's pensionable service should be counted from the date he completed 5 years service from the date of initial appointment, as immediately upon completion of 5 years service in the Contingency Paid Establishment, the petitioner had acquired temporary status 8 under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1977. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, it is directed that the respondents shall recalculate the petitioner's pensionable service in accordance with this order and pay him the entire consequential benefits within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. There shall be no order as to interest on the arrears. 8. The writ appeal is allowed in the above stated terms.
Arguments
: Mr. Bharat Lal Dembra, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. A. K. Pandey, Govt. Advocate 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs : “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/direction directing the respondents to extend the pensionary benefits from the date of initial appointment i.e. 24/3/1980 when he was initially appointed, with all other arrears and monetary benefits with interest @12% per annum. I 10.2. Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage Amin under the respondent authorities on 24.03.1980. Since his appointment, he has rendered his services with utmost sincerity, honesty, and to the complete satisfaction of the authorities. In recognition of his dedication, the services of petitioner were regularized vide order dated 11.05.1994. Subsequently, he retired from service on 31.03.2020 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Despite having served continuously for approximately 40 years, the respondent authorities have failed to release the retiral benefits of petitioner. It is not disputed that the services of petitioner were regularized well before his retirement and that his period of service satisfies 3 the requirements of “continuous service.” The inaction of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, causing the petitioner severe financial hardship. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the applicable law and the facts of the case. Despite the petitioner having acquired permanent status after serving for 14 years in the contingency establishment, the respondent authorities have failed to release the rightful retiral benefits of petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner rendered continuous service for approximately 40 years and that his services were regularized by the State vide order dated 11.05.1994, well before his retirement upon attaining superannuation. In identical matters, this Court, including the Division Bench in WA No. 281/2013 and other connected matters, as well as the Single Bench in W.P.S. Nos. 5472/2022 and 8529/2022, has consistently ruled in favor of employees similarly situated. Having regularized the services of petitioner, the State had no justifiable cause to deny the petitioner his statutory retiral dues, which are provided under welfare legislation intended to benefit long-serving employees. It is the duty of the State to release these dues voluntarily rather than compel employees to seek redress through judicial intervention. 4 Despite repeated efforts by the petitioner post-retirement to obtain his retiral benefits, no action has been taken by the authorities to consider or decide his claim. The inaction of the respondents is thus illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, causing the petitioner acute financial hardship. Furthermore, the failure to provide any explanation for the delay indicates negligence on the part of the authorities in disbursing the rightful retiral dues of petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel opposing submission of learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the allegations made by the petitioner are misconceived and untenable. The respondent authorities have acted strictly in accordance with the law and established procedures. The delay in releasing the retiral benefits is attributable to certain discrepancies and pending departmental formalities, which arose due to the own conduct of petitioner during service, including issues that warranted a departmental enquiry. It is further submitted that the claim of continuous service of petitioner and regularization is disputed and not in conformity with the official records. The respondents have already taken appropriate steps to resolve the matter and ensure due compliance with the rules; however, the payment of retiral dues cannot be made without proper verification and clearance of all relevant formalities. 5 5. I heave heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.
Decision
3. It is ordered accordingly. The judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.88 of 2019 shall also be applicable in this case to the extent that the services rendered the petitioners as daily wage employee prior to regularization shall also be counted for the purpose of grant of retiral dues including pensionary benefit. The implementation of the same shall be after due verification of the service records of the petitioners. 4. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.” 8. Order passed in W.P.(S) No.5142 of 2020 was challenged in writ appeal before Division Bench of this Court and Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal observing thus :- “4. In this writ appeal, learned State counsel would place reliance on an interim order passed by this Court in WA No.102/2020 dated 05-02-2020, wherein 9 a similar order passed by the single Bench has been stayed. 5. In the order dated 05-02-2020 passed in writ appeal No.102/2020, the petitioners therein were daily wages employee and therefore, on the said premises an interim order has been passed. 6. In the case at hand, the extract of service book of most of the writ petitioners would reveal that they were working in the Department of Public Works in the category of General Majdoor being part of “Permanent Gang”. There is no dispute that members of “Permanent Gang” are engaged as contingency paid employee. Even though, the order of appointment has not been filed alongwith writ petition, the fact that the writ petitioners were members of permanent gang is sufficient to establish their status as one of contingency paid employee. 7. Reliance placed by single Judge in the order passed in the WA No.88/2019 is in accordance with law and there is no scope of interference in this appeal. 8. It is accordingly dismissed.” 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a daily wage Amin on 24.03.1980 and subsequently regularized on 11.05.1994, retiring on 31.03.2020. The contention of the respondents that there were certain departmental discrepancies or pending verifications has no bearing on the settled legal right of the petitioner to have his 10 qualifying service computed from the date he attained temporary status, which under Rule 4(2)(b) of the Rules of 1977 is after completion of five years of service. There is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner was disengaged at any time between 1980 to 1994 or that he was not continuously employed. Thus, in absence of such contrary proof, and in light of the circular dated 02.03.2005 and the judgments cited, the petitioner is entitled to have his entire service from 1980 to 2020 considered for pensionary benefits. 10. For the foregoing reasons, and in the light of binding precedents and government circulars, it is hereby directed that the respondents shall recalculate the pensionable service of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment i.e., 24.03.1980, including the period rendered as daily wage employee prior to regularization, and disburse all consequential pensionary benefits accordingly. Implementation of order shall be made after due verification of service record of petitioner. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna