SAMIM BEGUM Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUESTION involved in this petition is as to whether under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1976"), period spent by the employee in the work -charged establishment can be counted as qualifying service.

(2.) THE husband of the petitioner Shri Fazal Khan was initially appointed as Helper in the Public Health Engineering Department, Division Gwalior, on daily wages. Thereafter, his services were regularised under the work -charged contingency as per the recommendation of the Selection Committee and fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 750 -945/ - vide order dated 16.4.1991 (Annexure P -1). During the period of employment, the husband of the petitioner died on 10.11.1999. After his death, the petitioner being his wife, applied for pensionary benefits on the ground that her husband Shri Fazal Khan had worked for more than 18 years and as per the Rules of 1976, she was entitled for pensionary benefits.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Government Advocate drew my attention to the Division Bench decision in the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Singh and another passed in WP No. 1273/00 decided on 18.7.2005, in which the employee was engaged as daily wager by the State on 6.3.1948, he continued to serve on daily wages and was discontinued vide order dated 31.4.1996 on attaining the age of 58 years. The Division Bench of this Court has held that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that employee has been appointed on a work -charged or as contingency paid employee and, therefore, he will not fall in the definition of work -charged or contingency paid employee and his case will not be covered by The M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. In the instant case, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as daily wages Helper on 1.4.1981 and thereafter his services were regularised in the year 1991 in the work -charged establishment.