Parth Prateem Sahu, J
1. The relief prayed for in the writ petition was for including the period of service rendered by the petitioner as temporary employee in the capacity of
contingency paid employee, for counting as pensionable service, which the Department is not counting because the petitioner was regularized on the
post of LDC only in the year 1988.
2. There is no dispute about the fact of date of petitioner's joining the service in the Contingency Paid Establishment in the year 1979 and his date of
regularization in the year 1988. It is also not in dispute that while calculating the pensionary benefits, petitioner's services from the date of
regularization have been counted. However, the petitioner claims that his services rendered in the Contingency Paid Establishment as a temporary
employee, prior to the date of regularization, should also be counted as pensionable service.
3. From the order passed by the Single Bench, it appears that the petitioner has been allowed gratuity by the Controlling Authority under the Payment
of Gratuity Act from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1979.
4. Pension Rules provide for grant of pensionary benefits for the entire qualifying service, which an employee has rendered on a civil post. The period
spent by the petitioner as a temporary employee in the Contingency Paid Establishment has not been counted towards the pensionable service for the
reason that he came to hold a civil post only after the date of regularization.
5. Petitioner's services during his posting in the Contingency Paid Establishment were governed under the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department
Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977. Under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the said Rules, a
contingency paid employee is accorded temporary status immediately upon completion of 5 years service. On representation by the Employees Union,
the State Government issued a circular on 02.03.2005, which reads as follows:
‘‘
, ,
81/1056/ / /04
                                                         Â
                                    , 2 , 2005
,
, , , , , :
/
◌
( ) , 1 97 9 6 (3 )
,
,
1
,
1
9
74
,
6 , ‘‘
◌
/-
( )
,
, ‘‘
 6. In the above quoted circular, the State Government clearly directed that for counting the pensionable service, the period spent as temporary
employee shall also be counted. The Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has also held in the matter of Shrikrishna Shrivastava vs State of
M. P. and others, reported in (2003) 4 MPLJ 376, that period of temporary service rendered by a contingency paid employee shall be counted in the
pensionable service.
7. In view of the circular issued by the State Government and the law laid down by the Division Bench of the M. P. High Court in Shrikrishna
Shrivastava (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's pensionable service should be counted from the date he completed 5 years
service from the date of initial appointment, as immediately upon completion of 5 years service in the Contingency Paid Establishment, the petitioner
had acquired temporary status under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1977. It is ordered accordingly. Consequently, it is directed that the respondents shall
recalculate the petitioner's pensionable service in accordance with this order and pay him the entire consequential benefits within a period of 3 months
from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. There shall be no order as to interest on the arrears.
8. The writ appeal is allowed in the above stated terms.
