STATE OF M P Vs. MOHAMMAD SADIQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries have assailed the order dated 16-10-2008 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. No. 3365/07 (S).

(2.) The writ petitioner (respondent herein this appeal) is a retired government employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh and has filed a writ petition claiming pension. According to the respondent he was appointed as daily wager in the year 1960 and thereafter his services were regularised on 1st January, 1996. Further it has been pleaded by him that he has been retired from services on attaining the age of superannuation as a regular Gangman with effect W. A. No. 353 of 2009 decided on 12-8-2010. (Gwalior)from 31st December, 2002. According to the respondent, he has completed 30 years of service as on 1 st January, 2002 and on his retirement he submitted an application for the grant of pension which has not been allowed vide order dated 25th January, 2005 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Shivpuri stating therein that for the entitlement of the pension ten years minimum regular service is required under the Pension Rules, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits. Hence, the said order was challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition before the learned Writ Court.

(3.) The appellants, who were respondents before the learned Writ Court filed their return and pleaded that the writ petitioner being a daily rated employee although his services were regularised in the year 1996 and because he did not acquire the minimum qualifying service of 10 years after regularisation, hence he is not at all eligible for the grant of pension. The appellants placed reliance upon a circular of the State Government which was annexed as Annexure R/l before the learned Writ Court and submitted that according to that circular a government servant is entitled for the pension only if he has served for 10 years or more. The appellants along with their return also filed Annexure R/2, which is some office order dated 10th July, 2003 granting pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- to the writ petitioner. The further stand which was taken by the appellants in their return is that since the writ petitioner was appointed as daily wager, he is not governed by the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for brevity "the Pension Rules of 1979"), and therefore, the question of granting pension to the writ petitioner does not arise. Further the case of appellants is that the writ petitioner has discharged his duties as regularised daily wages labourer, and therefore, for this another reason also the Pension Rules of 1979 are not applicable to him. Hence, it has been submitted that since the writ petitioner has not rendered 10 years qualifying service after regularisation, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of pension.