MANIRAM KUSHWAH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.

(2.) With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

(3.) The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by illegal and arbitration action on the part of the respondents not counting his past services before regularization for the purpose of pension. It is further submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a daily wager Telephone Attendant in the respondents' department on 14.02.1979 and while he was working with the Office of Respondent No.3, he has been retired. His salary was being paid from the contingency fund on monthly basis. Thereafter, services of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated 31.12.1998 w.e.f. 01.01.1999 on the post of Telephone Attendant in Worked Charged Establishment against clear vacant post and regular Pay-Scale of Rs. 2750-70-3800-75-4400 was granted w.e.f. the date of regularization. On attaining age of superannuation, the petitioner was retired from the services w.e.f. 28.02.2015 from the post of Telephone Attendant from the Office of Executive Engineer, Sub-Division, Morena, District Morena. On bar perusal of PPO, it reveals that for the purposes of pension respondents have taken into consideration services of petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1999, instead of his initial date of appointment i.e. 14.02.1979, whereas in terms of M.P. (Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, the petitioner is fully entitled to receive benefits of pension and other retiral dues from the date of his appointment.