RAM KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted. The admitted facts are that the appellant joined the work-charged establishment of the respondent-Government as a Junior Engineer on 23/11/1968. He was appointed as a regular Junior Engineer with effect from 22/04/1972 and was promoted as an Assistant Engineer in 1979. He retired voluntarily from the said post on 6/01/1990. The Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Rules'] which apply to the regular posts such as the one held by the appellant since 4/05/1972, lay down the qualifying period of service of 20 years for an employee to be eligible for pension under Rule 42 thereof. The Madhya Pradesh Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees' Pension Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 1979 Rules') which came into force with effect from 1/01/1974, by Rule 4 (2 make the 1976 Rules applicable to all permanent employees who have retired on or after 1/06/1976. Rule 2 (c) of the 1979 Rules defines a "permanent employee" as follows:

(2.) The 1976 Rules read with the 1979 Rules make it clear that an employee who voluntarily retires under Rule 42 (l) (a) of 1976 Rules after completing 20 years' qualifying service by following the requisite procedure laid down therein, would be entitled to pension under the said rules. On the admitted facts stated above, the appellant had put in 21 years, one month and 14 days' service when he sought voluntary retirement on 6/01/1990. On the basis of the said rules, therefore, he is entitled to the pension.

(3.) The respondent-Government, however, denied him the benefit of Rule 42 (l) (a) of the 1976 Rules on the ground that the 1976 Rules did not apply to work-charged establishment in view of the provisions of Rule 2 (2 (a) thereof. Hence his service in the work-charged establishment from November 23, 196 8/05/1972 could not be taken into account for calculating the qualifying service under Rule 42 (l) (a). According to the government if the said service is excluded, the appellant cannot be said to have put in 20 years' service as a regular Junior Engineer from May 4, 197 2/01/1990. Unfortunately, the tribunal has also accepted the said contention and rejected the application of the appellant for pension by the impugned order.