PUSHPA BAIRAGI Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as daily wage labour in the year 1979 and her services were regularized by the department on the post of Lower Division Clerk on 4/1/1988. He would further submit that the petitioner retired from services on 12/6/2017. He would also submit that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefit under the provisions of the Work Charged and Contingency Fund Paid Employee Pension Rules, 1979 by counting her services rendered by her as a temporary employee. He would further contend that according to the Circular issued by the State Government on 2/3/2005, her status was of a permanent employee. He would also contend that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Devantin Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Writ Appeal No. 1073 of 2012 and other connected writ appeals. He would further argue that against the order passed in the matter of Devantin Bai (supra), the State Government has preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is still pending. Thus, he would pray to dispose of this matter in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of Lakhanram Sahu & Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, Writ Appeal No. 281 of 2013 and further direction to the State Government to make payment of arrears of pension etc.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Guru, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would submit that the issue involved in the present case has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Uday Pratap Thakur and Another Vs. State of Bihar and others, Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2023 and other connected matters. He would further submit that the argument advanced by Mr. Sharma cannot be accepted. He would also submit that if the same is accepted, it would be tantamount to regularizing services of the petitioner from the initial appointment as work charged or daily wages. He would further contend that there is a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work-charged employee working under the work-charged establishment. He would further argue that the petitioner was not appointed after due process of selection and as per the Recruitment Rules, therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner as work charged employee cannot be counted for the purpose of pension/quantum of pension.