ORDER
Shubhada R. Waghmare, J.
1. By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of consideration of assessment as well as payment of pension and gratuity by the respondent/Education Department, State of M.P.
2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Peon in Middle School, Kanya Shala Pandhana, District Khandwa on 16-12-1978. She was regularised on the post on 1-4-1988 and duly retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31-3-1997. That despite her application for assessment of her pension and gratuity under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979, which was sent to the office of the Block Education Officer, Pandhana (East Nimad), Khandwa on 26-9-1988, it was merely forwarded to the Office of the Joint Director (Funds & Pension), Indore. The petitioner herself forwarded an application to the Joint Director on 15-6-98 and despite recommendation by the Block Education Officer no action was taken in the matter and the petitioner was constrained to file O.A. No. 2974/1998, which has been renumbered as Writ Petition No. 13054/2003.
3. Counsel lor the petitioner stated that on her superannuation the petitioner had completed 19 years of service and was therefore entitled to pension whereas her approximate 10 years of service with the respondent department of the M.P. State Government was being casually treated by the respondents and she was given to understand that she did not have the qualifying service for the entitlement of pension according to the rules.
4. Counsel has disputed this fact by placing reliance on Rule 6 Sub-rule (3) of the amended rules for M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 as amended on 8-12-1979. Relevant extract of the rules have been filed as Annexure A-5 along with (he petition. Rule 6(3) states that on the services of the temporary employee being regularised under the said rules after assimilation on 1 st January, 1974, then such an employee who has completed 6 years of service will be entitled to pension. Counsel has also relied on the judgment of this Court passed in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava v. Slate of M.P. and Ors. 2003(4) MPLJ 376, whereby this Court has held that:
5. As per amendment in the rules known as Madhya Pradesh (Worked Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, in Rule 6(3) it is provided that if a temporary employee who has served uninterruptedly and is regularised on a regular pensionable post, his services after 1st January, 1974, which shall not be less than six years, shall be counted for pension and not from the date when he was regularised. In the aforesaid Pension Rules of 1979, Rule 6 relates to commencement of qualifying service. It is provided that for calculating qualifying service of a permanent employee, who retires as such, the service rendered w.e.f. 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted. It is further provided that on absorption of a permanent employee, who retires as such, the service rendered w.e.f. 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted. It is further provided that on absorption of a permanent employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post and thereafter Sub-rule (3) was introduced vide notification dated 30th January, 1996 and it is provided that any temporary employee, who has been served uninterruptedly and on his absorption on regular pensionable post after 1st January, 1974 the period shall be counted towards pension.
And it was further held that:
Petitioner was eligible to be regularised on the post on completion of five years service as a contingency paid employee and for the purposes of pension his period of service shall be counted from the date of his regularisation till the date of his retirement.
In the instant case, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has already been regularised on 1-4-1988.
5. Similarly in the matter of Samim Begum v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2006(4) MPLJ 112, it has been held that regularisation of service under work charged contingency the period of service rendered by an employee in work charged establishment towards qualifying service has to be counted for purpose of pension. And in a recent judgment of this Court passed on 17-11-2004 in the matter of Lallan Bai v. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P. (S) No. 2698/2003, the Court has held thus:
14. It is apparent that for the purpose of family pension Rule 4-A of the Pension Rules of 1979 read with Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 makes it clear that if an incumbent has rendered not less than 7 years continuous service, family of incumbent is entitled for the family pension. It is not in dispute that deceased Jagmohan Singh Gond had rendered the continuous service for more than 7 years. Rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules of 1979 clearly provided that without interruption for not less than 6 years such services shall be counted for pension as if such services has rendered on regular post, qualifying service has to be given effect to while considering the length of the service, as specified in Rule 2(e) of the Rules of 1979 otherwise the purpose of fiction created of Rule 6(3) stands defeated. Thus the submission raised by the respondents that as per Rule 6(3), services cannot be computed towards qualifying service, cannot be accepted. The services which has been rendered, as qualifying service under Rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules of 1979 has to be counted, as rendered on a regular post. Thereafter, entitlement has to be determined by the respondent in accordance with law.
15. Resultantly both the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned order (P-8) in W.P.S. No. 2698/2003 and order (P-3) in W.P.S. No. 1357/2004, are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to determine the pension in accordance with law in terms of the above directions within 3 months from today and make the payment of the same along with interest of 6% per annum from the date the pension has been wrongfully deprived to the petitioners. Cost on parties.
6. Counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand has stated that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on a casual basis and the petitioner did not undergo the regular recruitment process and the regularisation of the petitioner was not in accordance with law. Moreover, the petitioner has not completed 10 years of regular service and hence she was not entitled of pension as claimed by her.
7. On considering the above submission, I find that the petitioner has been properly appointed in the year 1978, the petitioner has herself sated in the petition that she was working on contingency basis till her regularisation on 1-4-1988, then considering the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and reliance placed in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra); Samim Begum v. State of M.P. and Ors. (supra) and Lallan Bai v. Stale of M.P. (supra), the petition is allowed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to pension having put in more than 19 years of service and the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and the petitioner shall be paid all the consequential benefits like interest etc. that are found due to her and her entitlement shall be considered in accordance with law.
8. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.