Pawan Kumar Sahu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Pawan Kumar Sahu, a retired Constable (Excise), claims that his service rendered as a contingency/daily paid employee prior to his regularization has not been counted for retirement dues, including pension. He contends that this period of service should be counted. The petitioner relies on a Division Bench judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Mubin Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and a circular issued by the State Government on March 2, 2005, which mandates the counting of temporary service for pensionable dues. The respondents are the State of Chhattisgarh and various departments and officers responsible for service and pension matters.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's pensionable service should be counted from the date he completed 5 years of service from his initial appointment, as he acquired temporary status under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1977, upon completion of 5 years of service in the Contingency Paid Establishment. This decision was based on the State Government's circular dated March 2, 2005, and the Division Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shrikrishna Shrivastava (supra). The Court further held that the judgment passed in Mubin Khan (supra) would also be applicable, directing that services rendered by the petitioner as a daily wage employee prior to regularization shall be counted for grant of retiral dues, including pensionary benefits. The respondents were directed to recalculate the petitioner's pensionable service accordingly and pay all consequential benefits within three months of receiving the certified copy of the order. No order was made as to interest on arrears. The issue of whether the petitioner had completed 5 years of service from his initial appointment was implicitly decided in his favour by the direction to recalculate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the period of service rendered by the petitioner as a contingency/daily paid employee prior to regularization should be counted for the purpose of calculating retiral dues, including pensionary benefits, under the relevant service rules and government circulars? The petitioner argued that his service as a contingency paid employee prior to regularization should be counted for pensionary benefits. He relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mubin Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [W.A. No. 88 of 2019] and a circular dated March 2, 2005, issued by the State Government. The circular, in turn, referred to Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977, which grants temporary status upon completion of 5 years of service, and directed that temporary service should be counted for pensionable dues. The petitioner also cited the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in Shrikrishna Shrivastava vs State of M. P. and others, (2003) 4 MPLJ 376, which held that temporary service of a contingency paid employee should be counted towards pensionable service. The State's arguments were not explicitly recorded in the judgment.