SUJATA BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the petition is for quashment of order Annexure P/1 dated 01/02/06 whereby representation filed by petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that petitioner who is Doctor by profession was in job and worked as intern in MGM Medical College, Indore w.e.f. 01/03/77 to 20/03/78. Thereafter petitioner worked as Resident House Surgeon w.e.f. 01/04/78 to 15/05/79. Thereafter petitioner was appointed as Demonstrator and worked w.e.f. 16/05/79 to 11/06/81 and thereafter petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in Employees State Insurance Corporation from June, 1981 to January, 1998. On 14/01/98 petitioner submitted the resignation which was duly accepted and the petitioner was relieved on 14/01/98. Since the petitioner was refused for pension on the ground that in view of Rule 42 of Pension Rules petitioner has not completed 20 years of services, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for pension. Petitioner approached this Court in WP.No.642/05, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25/02/05 with a direction that petitioner shall submit a detailed representation before competent authority alongwith the order passed by this Court in the matter of Ex.Cpl.H.J.Warren Vs. Union of India, 2002 1 MPHT 235and competent authority shall dispose of the representation within a period of two months. Further case of the petitioner is that in compliance of that representation was submitted, which was dismissed, hence this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that impugned order passed by respondents is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the respondent has erred in holding that the period spent by the petitioner in the capacity of intern / resident house surgeon / demonstrator cannot be added to her services. It is submitted that the post of Demonstrator is a regular post under the service rules as per gazette dated 3/06/1988. It is submitted that since the petitioner was full time in employment with the respondent and received the pay, therefore, there was no justification on the part of respondent in dismissing the representation submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that since the case of the petitioner was recommended by all the authorities, therefore, there was no justification on the part of Finance Department for rejecting the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason. It is submitted that the petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside and respondent be directed to grant pension for which petitioner is entitled.