SHRIKRISHAN SHRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was engaged on daily wages on 1.12.1977. He continued to work full time on monthly basis and his pay was charged to ''office contingency". He was regularised on the post of Amin vide order dated 11.5.1994. Petitioner petired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th June 2000. After retirement petitioner applied for grant of pension. Pension was rejected on the ground that petitioner has not completed qualifying service to receive the pension. Petitioner filed an application before M.P. State Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of State Government refusing to sanction the pension.

(2.) TRIBUNAL held that after regularisation of petitioner in the year 1994, his services started from the year 1994 and when a member of contingency and work charged employee, who has completed atleast six years service is regularised without any break on a pensionable post, then his services rendered in work charged and contingency paid services shall be counted as qualifying service for pension. Tribunal held that since six years have not been completed by the petitioner after regularisation, he is not eligible for pension.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner was engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 1.12.1977, who was drawing his wages on monthly basis and his pay was charged to ' 'office contingency''. Respondents in their return filed before the Tribunal have mentioned that services rendered on contingency paid post cannot be reckoned with the service rendered on a civil post. Thus, respondents have admitted that petitioner has rendered service on a contingency paid post. In the said view of admission, petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the rules of 1977 and he was eligible to be recruited to the service on completion of five years service.