KALA BAI PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra-Court appeal filed by the Appellant seeking to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st September,2010 by which her writ petition for grant of family pension was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal are that the husband of the Appellant was employed as a gangman by the Respondents on daily wage basis since 01st May, 1973. His services were regularised under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged And Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment And Conditions of Service Rules, 1977 (for brevity, "Contingency Rules of 1977") with effect from 09th April, 1991. Said regularisation was in terms of recommendations of the selection committee. The husband of the Appellant died on 03rd August, 1997, i.e. almost within six years of regularisation of her late husband in the service of the Respondents. After his death, the Appellant being his widow, applied for family pension which was declined by the Respondents and aggrieved there from, she filed a writ petition for directions against the Respondents to grant her family pension on account of death of her husband and the impugned order which is assailed by her in the present appeal has been passed by the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Yogesh Singhal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has argued that the service rendered by the late husband of the Appellant while he worked on muster roll during the period from 01st May,1973 till the date of his regularisation, i.e. 09th April, 1991 should also be counted towards qualifying service required for grant of family pension. In sum and substance, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the service rendered by the late husband of the Appellant on muster roll from 01st May, 1973 to 09th April, 1991 was also service under the Contingency Rules of 1977 as he was always paid salary on monthly basis. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the definition of contingency paid employee given in Rule 2 (b) of Contingency Rules of 1977 which reads as under: