Family Of Person Employed In Regular Work-Charged Establishment, Cannot Be Deprived Of Pension Which It Would Be Entitled By Virtue Of Mp Pension Rules, 1979: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Division Bench of Justice Rohit Arya and Justice M.R. Phadke was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by the Appellant against the order passed by the Writ Court, wherein her prayer for directing the State to provide her with family pension was rejected.

The case of the Appellant before the Writ Court was that her husband was appointed as Gangman in the Public Works Department on muster roll in 1963 and his services were regularised in the year 1998. He retired in the year 2007 with 9 years and 5 months of service with 43 years of service, cumulatively. Her husband, had asked for pension but the same was denied by the authority concerned on the ground that he did not complete the minimum service of 10 years to be eligible for pension. Concurring with the submissions of the State Government, the Writ Court dismissed the petition of the Petitioner/Appellant holding that she was not eligible for family pension.

The Appellant argued before the Court that Writ Court overlooked the fact that as per rule 6(3) of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 ('Pension Rules of 1979') which deals with commencement of qualifying service. The respective provisions specifically lays out that in case there is absorption of temporary employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1974 onwards, if such service is not less than six years, shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post.

It was further submitted by the Appellant that Rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules of 1979 defines the term 'Permanent Employee' as a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who had completed fifteen years of service or more on or after 1st of January, 1974. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant asserted that her husband being in employment since 1963 and had completed more than six years of regular service prior to his regularization 1998, he was entitled for the pension and consequently, she was eligible for family pension as well.

Per contra, the State reiterated its earlier submission before the Writ Court that since the Appellant's husband had not completed 10 years of regular services, he was neither entitled to pension nor was the Appellant entitled for family pension. It placed its reliance on the decision of a full bench of the Court in Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P. & Ors. and further contended that as per the Recruitment Rules of 1977, his past services would not be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in accordance with the Pension Rules of 1979.

Examining the submissions of the parties, the Court observed that the impugned order deserved interference as it was not based on correct interpretation of the pension rules-

Considering the entire controversy, we find that the order of learned Single Judge impugned herein deserves interference, as it is not based upon correct interpretation of the pension rules and also the stand of the respondent department is severely lopsided and injudicious. The case of the petitioner that he was a Gangman appointed on muster roll on 26/12/1963, was regularized from 01/01/1998 and stood retired on 31/05/2007 and for his services rendered, pension to be paid, would be regulated by the M.P. Pension Rules of 1979, has force in it and for that it is expedient to refer the relevant provisions of Pension Rules of 1979 and 1976.

The Court noted that if one were to read Rule 4A and Rule 6 of the Pension Rules of 1979, it would be crystal clear that the provisions which govern the family pension have a different field of operation than the provisions regarding pension to an employee who retires from the work-charged establishment and are governed by Rule 6-

A harmonious reading of Rule 4 A, 6 (3) of Rules of 1979 and Rule 47 of Rules of 1976 would fresco that family of a person employed in a regular work-charged establishment, cannot be deprived of the pension which it would be entitled for by virtue of Rule 4 A of Rules, 1979.

Analysing its decision in the Mamta Shukla case, the Court opined that the same would not be applicable to the case in hand because it did not deal with a similar legal issue.

The Court held that the Appellant husband was eligible for pension and therefore, she would be entitled for family pension as well-

Consequently, in view of above, the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the respondents were justified in denying the family pension to the petitioner on the ground of petitioner's husband did not complete 10 years of service in Regular Work Charged Establishment, could not be sustained and therefore, it is hereby declared that the services of the husband of the petitioner would be governed by Rule 4A and sub-rule 3 of Rule 6 of M.P. (Work charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and she would be entitled for the family pension.

With the aforesaid observations, the Court quashed the order of the Writ Court and directed the State Government to pay the pension and other consequential benefits to the Appellant, within a period of three months from the date of the order. Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Case Title : Smt. Kala Devi v State of M.P. and others

Citation :

Click Here To Read/Download Order