MAYA DHOBI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed seeking direction against respondents to pay the pension and settle the other post retiral benefits after counting the period of service as daily wager from contingency fund rendered by the petitioner prior to the regularization.

(2.) THE respondents have filed their reply denying the averments as made in the petition. Shri Rajesh Tiwari learned GA appearing for the respondents/ State is not in a position to distinguish that petitioner is not governed by the ( Work charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and the judgment as passed in the case of Samim Begum (Supra), Shrikrishna Shrivastava (Supra) and Ram Kumar Agrawal (Supra) relied on by the petitioner are distinguishable on the facts and law in the present case.

(3.) CONSIDERING the aforesaid, it is to be held that service of the petitioner rendered by him as a daily wager employee from the work charge and contingency fund prior to regularization is required to be counted for the purpose of pension in view of the judgments in Samim Begum (Supra), Shrikrishna Shrivastava (Supra) and Ram Kumar Agrawal (Supra).