Citation : 2007 Local Law (CG) 264
The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a long-running pension claim by a former government employee who asked the court to count years spent as a daily wager toward the ten years of qualifying service required for pension and gratuity. The petitioner had worked on daily wages from September 24, 1974, was regularized only on December 24, 1986, and retired on March 25, 1995. The court upheld the respondents’ reliance on the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and found that the pre-regularisation period could not be treated as qualifying service.
The petitioner argued that a Labour Court order from December 17, 1984, which directed reinstatement with continuity of service, effectively established his right to count earlier daily-wage service for pensionary benefits. Counsel for the respondent board pointed to the 1976 pension rules and maintained that employment outside the established constitutional and statutory framework such as daily wages, contractual, or purely temporary appointments does not generate entitlement to regular service benefits. The court agreed, noting that the Labour Court’s reinstatement was limited to continuance as a daily wager and did not convert that tenure into regular service.
Under the Pension Rules of 1976, qualifying service begins when a government servant takes charge of the post to which they are first appointed substantively, or even in an officiating or temporary capacity, but the rules still require a minimum of ten years of qualifying service for pension eligibility. Because the petitioner’s regularised service began in late 1986 and he retired in March 1995, the court concluded he did not meet the statutory ten-year threshold.
The court also rejected the petition on procedural grounds. It noted that the petitioner waited roughly a decade after retirement to seek relief, pointing to established authority that delay, laches, and acquiescence are significant factors when a court exercises its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment cites Supreme Court precedents that discourage belated claims where a party has slept on its rights and the passage of time could prejudice the other side.
In sum, the High Court found no legal or equitable basis to treat the earlier daily-wage period as regular service for pension calculations. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
Case Details : Writ Petition No. 2507 of 2005, Jhadu Ram vs. C.G. State Electricity Board and Ors. (15.05.2007)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. and J.K. Gupta, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: P.S. Koshy, Adv.
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution Of India – Article 226
Cases Referred:
Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Dinabandhu Majumdar and Anr. (1995) 4 SCC 172; Chairman and Managing Director and Anr. v. K. Thangappan and Anr. (2006) 4 SCC 322; Durg Prasad v. Chief Controller
======
सेवा – पेंशन – याचिका में याचिकाकर्ता ने अपनी दैनिक वेतनभोगी सेवाओं को पेंशन हेतु गिनने की मांग की थी। न्यायालय ने यह पाया कि याचिकाकर्ता की सेवा 24 दिसंबर 1986 तक नियमित नहीं हुई थी, अर्थात वह उस तिथि तक सेवा में “जन्मा” नहीं माना जा सकता। याचिकाकर्ता की दैनिक वेतन पर की गई नियुक्ति को विभागीय सेवा के रूप में नहीं गिना जा सकता। यह विधि का स्थापित सिद्धांत है कि संवैधानिक प्रावधानों के बाहर की गई नियुक्ति, जैसे दैनिक वेतन, संविदा या अस्थायी आधार पर की गई नियुक्ति, वैध नहीं होती और ऐसे कर्मचारी को नियमित सेवा तथा उसके लाभों का कोई अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं होता।
फलस्वरूप, न्यायालय ने याचिका को निराधार पाते हुए खारिज कर दिया।
