Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2025.09.01 17:19:57 +0530 2025:CGHC:43070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6399 of 2019 1 - Vijay Kumar Rajput S/o Late Shri Shiv Kapoor Singh Rajput Aged About 63 Years Retired Assistant Grade Iii, R/o Brahman Para, Near Kali Mandir, Gandhi Chowk, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner 2 - Director Treasury, Accounts And Audit Department, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Water Resources Department, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6435 of 2019 1 - Dwibhashi Ramprasad S/o Late Shri Ramam Rao Aged About 65 Years Retired Assistant Grade Iii, R/o Mamta Nagar, Lane No.5, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Treasury, Accounts And Audit Department Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer Chhattisgarh Water Resources Department Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WPS No. 6444 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
1 - Smt. Radhika Patel W/o - Anand Ram Patel Aged About 58 Years R/o - Village Khajri Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Versus ---Petitioner 2 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director, Treasury, Accounts And Audit Department, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Executive Engineer, Chhattisgarh Water Resources, Department Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioners : Mr. Anup Majumdar, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Mr. Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, J) 1. 2. Order on Board 25/08/2025 With consent of the parties, heard the matter finally. Since issue involved in above 3 writ petitions is identical, therefore, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, mostly the facts and documents of WPS No. 6399/2019 will be referred in this order. 3. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash/set-aside the order dated 30.04.2019 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent no. 3. 10.2 That, respondent authorities may be directed to calculate and pay pension and gratuity and arrears thereof to the petitioner, taking into consideration the period of service as daily wager or from initial date of appointment, from his date of retirement and interest upon at the rate of 12% per month till date of payment. 3 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 The cost of the petition may be allowed.” 4. Bref facts of the case as projected in writ petitions are that, petitioner Vijay Kumar Rajput (WPS No. 6399/2019) and Dwibhashi Ramprasad (WPS No. 6435/2019) and Husband (now he has died) of petitioner Smt. Radhika Patel (WPS No. 6444/2019) were initially appointed as Office Assistant on 10-7-1980, 7-11-1981 and 16-11-1979 respectively on daily wage basis in the M.P. Lift Irrigation Corporation. On 29-3- 1990 vide Annexure P-3, petitioners’ services were regularized/absorbed under Work Charged Establishment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. They continued to work as work charged employees on the sanctioned post of Lower Division Clerk till their retirement on 30-9-2018, 31-7-2016 and 31-5-2018 respectively. Although respondents have decided to grant pension, gratuity to them, but their service period as daily wage employees from 10-7- 1980, 7-11-1981 and 16-11-1979 to 11-4-1990 respectively has been excluded from qualifying years of service vide order Annexure P-1 dated 30-4-2019 issued by respondent No. 3. Therefore, the petitioners are getting lesser amount of pension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, since petitioners were initially appointed as daily wagers against the post of Lower Division clerk and specific work was being taken from them and also paid salary from contingency head, therefore, service rendered by 4 them as daily wage employees is countable for granting pension to them. He further submits that , period spend by them, from their initial appointment to 11-4-1990, ought to have been counted for calculating qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rule 12 of the CG Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 (henceforth, referred to as ‘Rules, 1976’). Though, petitioners have sought relief in the writ petitions under the CG Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1977, but considering the facts and better relief, learned counsel for the petitioners wants to switch their prayer and seek relief under the Rules, 1976. It is further argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners were working as daily wage employees and they were being paid salary from contigency fund. In this regard, he referred the order dated 20-12-1982 issued by the Irrigation Department, State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it has been specifically mentioned in Clause 1 that, the daily wage employees and work charged employees, who have been appointed as daily wager, shall be paid daily wages as per the rate declared by the Commissioner of that area. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala and ors [(2020) 8 SCC 106] and State of Jharkhand Vs. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastav and others [AIR 2013 SC 3383], and a decision of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Arun Bende Vs. The State of MP and ors. (dtd. 15-1-2025 in Writ Petition No. 13314/2019). 6. State has filed reply. Referring to its reply, learned counsel for the 5 State submits that earlier, petitioners were appointed as daily wage employees and they were working on said post from their initial appoint till 11-4-1990. Their employment was regularized vide order (Annexure P-3) dated 29-3-1990. Thus, since, they worked as regular employees after 1990, therefore, they are entitled to get pension calculating qualifying service from 11-4-1990 only and for counting their pension, past services rendered by them as daily wage employee, cannot be countable. Hence, instant writ petitions are liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Rule 12(2) of the CG Civil Service Rules, 1976 deals with commencement of qualifying service, which reads thus : “12 Commencement of qualifying service: (1) xxx xxx xxx. (2) Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity.” 9. From perusal of Rule 12(2) of the Rules, 1976, it is quite vivid that qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in officiating or temporary capacity. 6 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2019) 10 SCC 516] considered the aspect of counting of service rendered by an employee prior to his regularization working under the Work Charged Establishment and being paid from the contingency fund and has held that the said period is to be counted for qualifying service for pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. Once regularisation had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed, it would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in the Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. An impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust. impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational 7 and creates an impermissible classification. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work- charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non- pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. Consequently, the provision contained in Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to be struck down as also the instructions contained in Para 669 of the Financial Handbook. There are some of the employees who have not been regularised in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years and some of them have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work- charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularised under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, [(2006) 4 SCC 1]. The services of the employees who had put in 10 years or more service is directed to be treated as regular. However, clarified that they shall not be entitled to claim any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work charged establishment shall be counted as 8 qualifying service for purpose of pension. The arrears of pension shall be confined to three years only before the date of the order.” 11. In these cases, petitioners were initially appointed as Office Assistant on daily wage basis in the M.P. Lift Irrigation Corporation. On 29-3- 1990 vide Annexure P-3, petitioners’ services were regularized/absorbed under Work Charged Establishment on the post of Lower Division Clerk. They continued to work as work charged employees on the sanctioned post of Lower Division Clerk till their retirement. Although pension has been granted to them but their service period as daily wage employees from 10-7-1980, 7-11-1981 and 16-11-1979 respectively till 11-4-1990 has been excluded from qualifying years of service for the purpose of pension. 12. If we consider the facts of instant writ petitions in the light of the Rule 12(2) of the Rules, 1976, and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Prem Singh (supra), in the opinion of this court, the petitioners herein will also be entitled for counting of past services rendered by them as a daily wage employees, as they were paid from contingency fund. 13. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 30-4-1990 (Annexure P-1) issued by the respondent No. 3 is unsustainable and it is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of petitioners for grant of pension and other retiral dues calculating the previous services rendered by them as daily wage / work charged employees. The exercise be completed within a period 9 of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 14.
Decision
Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of. 15. Interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Pathak