PURUSHOTTAM PRASAD CHOURASIYA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.1.2016 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent No.2 Divisional Forest Officer, East Forest Division, Chhindwara. Vide the aforesaid order Annexure P/5 the respondent No.2 has held that since the petitioner has not completed the requisite six years on the post of Cooprakshak hence a revised pension order cannot be issued in his favour.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the Forest Department on the post of Cooprakashak with effect from 1.5.1980 and continued on the said post till 26.2.1986 and subsequently having worked as Forest Guard from 27.2.1986 to 2.7.2009 and thereafter on the post of Forester from 3.7.2009 he retired from the said post of Forester on 31.5.2014. The petitioner's grievance was that the services rendered by him as Cooprakshak from 1.5.1980 to 26.2.1986 have not been taken into account for computing the pension, hence vide his representation dated 3.12.2015 he sought revision of pay claiming the entire service period to be 33 years. The respondent No.3/Chief Conservator of Forest also recommended the case of the petitioner to the respondent No.2/Divisional Forest Officer vide his letter dated 7.12.2015 and the petitioner's case was further forwarded by the respondent No.2 to respondent No.4/the District Pension Officer Chhindwara for revision of pension. However, the respondent No.4 vide his letter dated 28.1.2016 by referring the letter issued by the Finance Department held that the petitioner has not worked as Cooprakshak for a period of six years hence he is not entitled to revision of pension.

(3.) It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that this Court in W.P. No.3303/2006 (S) vide its order dated 31.10.2007 directed the respondents to include the work charge and contingency service of the petitioner for the purposes of counting the pensionary benefits. The other W.P. No.5316/2008 was also disposed of on the same line vide order dated 19.12.2008 by referring to the order passed in the case of Gopi Pillai vs M.P.E.B., Jabalpur and another, reported in 2002 (2) MPLJ 278. The counsel has further submitted that the respondents in case of other employees of the Forest Department who were serving as Cooprakashak has already granted the revision of pay vide its order dated 3.8.2009 to those employees who have not completed their six years service on the said post as the workcharged/contingency paid employee. The aforesaid order is also brought on record along with the pension calculation sheet of the identically placed employees, namely, Rajkishore Yadav, Revaram Chandelwal and Chain Singh Deshmukh. Thus the counsel has submitted that the petitioner has been unduly discriminated by the respondents whose case is otherwise not only covered by the order passed by this Court but is also akin to the other employees as mentioned above.