HARI SHANKAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially appointed as Muster Clerk on Work-charged establishment vide order dtd. 8/4/1968. Learned counsel submits that in Annexure P-2 it has clearly been mentioned that petitioner was appointed as Muster Clerk under the work-charged establishment. Thereafter, petitioner was assigned various duties and assignments from time to time under the work-charged establishment on the post of Muster Clerk. Thereafter on 6/2/1978 in pursuance of the selection made by the departmental selection committee the petitioner has been appointed as Ameen on regular establishment and since 1968 petitioner worked continuously on the said post till 31/12/2003 i.e. on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on retirement of petitioner the retiral dues including pension has been paid on taking into consideration of period of service only with effect from 23/2/1978 till 31/12/2003. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as the petitioner was initially appointed on 8/4/1968, therefore the services from 8/4/1968 to 23/2/1978 must have been calculated for qualifying services. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that as per the notification dtd. 30/1/1996 the services of petitioner must have been counted as qualifying services of work-charged establishment. It is further submitted that without considering the aforesaid aspects, the representation preferred by petitioner has been rejected by respondents. He relied upon a decision rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurishankar Pandey v. State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.16652 of 2016 dtd. 4/10/2017.

(3.) It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made the Rules, namely, Madhya Pradesh (Workcharged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (hereinafter called as 'Pension Rules, 1979). Rule 6 of the aforesaid rules prescribes qualifying services in regard to receipt of pension. Rule 6(3) is as under: