1 2025:CGHC:11110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3478 of 2020 Smt. Madna Bai Malakar W/o Late Shri Milan Malakar Aged About 55 Years Resident Of Madhuban, Modhipara, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (CG). ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Public Works Department , Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay , District New Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Engineer In Chief Public Works Department , Near Raj Bhawan Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Superintendent Engineer Public Works Department , Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Executive Engineer Public Works Department, Raigarh Division, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 6 - The Joint Director, Treasury, Account And Pension Bilaspur District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate on behalf of Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner challenging the communication / order dated 30.10.2019 RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.03.10 16:04:44 +0530 2 (Annexure-P/1) issued by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been declined to grant pension against the death of her husband. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that husband of the petitioner namely; Late Milan Malakar was working on the post of “Gangman” under the contingency establishment in permanent gang since 01.10.1984 under the respondent No.4 in Public Works Department. He worked there till 04.07.2008. On 04.07.2008, after his death, petitioner being his wife filed application for grant of family pension but it was not considered, therefore, petitioner filed WPS No.4804/2019, in which, vide order dated, 02.07.2019 (Annexure-P/9), petition was disposed of directing respondents No.3 & 4 to process the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension in accordance with the provisions of Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (henceforth referred to as “Pension Rules, 1979”). Despite aforesaid order, petitioner was not granted pension and her claim was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure-P/1), which has been challenged by petitioner by filing instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that husband of the petitioner was Gangman under the contingency establishment of respondent- department. He enjoyed the status of permanent employee as is defined under the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1979. According to the counsel for the petitioner, deceased employee had completed more than 15 years of his service in the contingency establishment and thus he had become a permanent employee, therefore, he was entitled for pension and pensionary benefits as per the aforesaid rule. Learned counsel for petitioner referring the document (Annexure-P/3) submitted that taking the service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.1984, respondent had ordered for regularizing the services of the deceased and other employees but unfortunately, husband of the petitioner (deceased) died on 04.07.2008 prior to issuance of order dated 23.8.2008 3 (Annexure-P/3), as such, he could not work as regular employee. He further submitted that mentioning the name of deceased employee in Annexure-P/3 itself shows that deceased was eligible in all respect for regularization in service, therefore, his name found place in the aforesaid order. Learned counsel further submitted that though deceased died prior to joining in regular service but only because of his death, petitioner cannot be deprived from pensionary benefits, hence, he prays that this petition may be allowed and relief(s) sought for by petitioner may be granted. 5. The respondents-State has filed its reply stating inter alia that deceased (late husband of petitioner) was initially engaged as daily wager in the year 1984. In the light of directives issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 has framed a policy, as one time measure, for regularization of services of the daily wages employees who have been appointed prior to 31.12.1997 vide Circular dated 05.03.2008. Thereafter, vide order dated 23.8.2008 (Annexure-P/3), various daily wage employees were regularized, in which, name of the deceased employee was also found place under the Work Charged & Contingency Fund Establishment. 5.1 Learned State counsel referring to its reply would submit that since vide order dated 23.8.2008, employment of deceased employee was regularized but prior to joining he died, thus, conditions of Circular dated 26.5.2018 (Annexure-P/8) are not fulfilled in respect of deceased employee because of his death, he could not join the regular establishment and did not work for a single day, as such, the case of husband of petitioner does not fall within the purview of Circular dated 26.5.2018 (Annexure-P/8), based upon which, the pension could be released, therefore, petitioner has been denied the pension vide impugned order, hence, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Undisputedly, Lt. husband of petitioner was a Gangman under the contingency establishment of respondent since 01.10.1984 and he worked there till his death in harness on 04.07.2008. Vide order dated 23.08.2008 (Annexure- P/3), employment of various employees was regularized and name of deceased husband of petitioner was also found place in Serial No.175 of that order but because of his death prior to issuance of aforesaid order, he could not work as regular employee in the regular establishment. 8. As per Rule 2 (C) of the Pension Rules, 1979, “Permanent Employees” means a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974. Husband of the petitioner was workman on the post of ‘Gangman’ under the contingency of the respondent-department since 1984 and he died on 04.07.2008, thus, he worked with the establishment of the respondents for more than 24 years. As such, he was competent for regularization as per Rule 2 (C) of the Pension Rules, 1979 and finding him eligible for regularization, his name was found place in order dated 23.08.2008 (Annexure-P/3). 9. Rule 3 of the Pension Rules, 1979 stipulates that the rules shall apply to every permanent member of the work-charged and contingency paid employee’s service. 10. Though deceased employee died prior to joining as regular employee in regular establishment of respondent but only because of it, his wife cannot be deprived from getting pension as per the Pension Rules, 1979. 11. In the case of Lakhanram Sahu and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarth and Others (Writ Appeal No.281/2013 and other connected cases), learned Division Bench of this Court has observed in para 8 as under:- “8. ……..If the acquisition of temporary status is by 5 virtue of a statutory provision, subject to fulfillment of the conditions prescribed under the same, the benefit flows automatically. The absence of a formal specific order granting that statutory status cannot take away the benefit of the same to those who fulfill the requirement. To hold otherwise will create an incongruous situation where a person may fulfill the statutory requirement but will still remain at the mercy of the Respondents who may or may not issue the necessary formal order rendering the statutory provision redundant. Such an interpretation would not only be arbitrary but would also be against the intention of the rule maker generating clearly avoidable litigation. Disputed claims would naturally fall in a different category.” 12. In the instant case, the deceased employee worked for about 24 years as “Gangman” under the contingency establishment of respondent-department and as per the Pension Rules, 1979, he had completed 15 years of his service, thus, he had obtained status of ‘permanent employee’ but that status was granted vide order 23.08.2008 (Annexure-P/3) that is to say after huge belated stage. If such order had been passed earlier, then, status of deceased employee would have been that of a regular employee of the respondent-department much prior to issuance of regularization order dated 23.08.2008 (Annexure-P/3). 13. For eligibility of Pension to the regular employee of work-charged / contingency establishment, the State of Chhattisgarh has issued Circular (Annexure-P/8) dated 26.05.2018, which reads thus:- वि्ቈ विቖኔश 30/2018 छቈኍसगढ़ शासन विቈኍ विभाग मंቔኋलय, मंहानदी भान, नय रायपुरा ्ቅ. 249/ एफ 2018-04-04169/वि/वि/ चार या रयापुर, दिቖኔक 26 मई, 2018 ्ቚवि, शस क समस् विभाग, 6 अध्या्ቌ, रजस् मण्डल, विलसपुर, समस् विभागध्या्ቌ, समस् सभाग$या आयाक्. समस् जिजलध्या्ቌ, छ्ቈ$सगढ़ विषया+- समन्या ्ቚशस विभाग क ሺኋपु ्ቅमक एफ 12-1/2007/1-3 दिቖኔक 5 मचा., 2008 क अग. वियामिम हुए शसक1या सक2 क3 पु4श क1 पु्ቔ क सबंध म4। सቖኔभा.+- 1. वि्ቈ विभाग क ሺኋपु ्ቅमक 79 / एल 2017-04-00364 / वि / वि / चार, या रयापुर दिቖኔक 28.2.2018 2. वि्ቈ विभाग क ሺኋपु ्ቅमक 173 / एफ 2018-04-04169 / वि / वि / चार, या रयापुर, दिቖኔक 7.4.2018 --------- समन्या ्ቚशस विभाग क विषयाविक ሺኋपु क अग. कया.भारिर/आकቦኌस्मक ቝኋपु म4 वियामिम हुए ቖኔ<विक भा3ग$ कम.चारिरया2 क3 छ्ቈ$सगढ़ ( कया.भारिर था आकቦኌस्मक स पु ल कम.चार$) पु4श वियाम 1979 क ्ቚध2 क अग. 10 ष. स अमिधक स हो3 ए अशቖኔया$ पु4श या3ज क सቖኔस्या हो3 क करण पु4श क1 पु्ቔ हो@ हो3$ हो<। म$या उ्ሴ न्यायालया म4 ቖኔयार याचिचाक ्ቅमक W.P.(S) No. 129/2012 विबंहोर$ लल जयासल विरू्ቍ छ०ग० शस ए W.P.(A) No. 209/2013 रम अर म. विरू्ቍ छ०ग० शस म4 पुरिर आቖኔश दिቖኔक 26.2.2015 क पुरिरपुल म4 याचिचाकक.ओं क1 ቖኔ<विक भा3ग$ कम.चार$ क रूपु म4 क1 गया$ स अमिध क3 पु4श क1 पु्ቔ क चिलए 10 ष. क1 न्याHम स क1 स$म क गण हो शमिमल कर क विቖኔश जर$ विकया गया हो<। 2/ रज्या शस ቛኋर विण.या चिलया गया हो< विक समन्या ्ቚशस विभाग क विषयाविक ሺኋपु दिቖኔक 5 मचा., 2008 क ्ቚध2 क अग. वियामिम ቝኋपु अथा कया.भारिर/ आकቦኌस्मक ቝኋपु म4 वियामिम विकया गया ቖኔ<विक भा3ग$ कम.चारिरया2 क1 ቖኔ<विक भा3ग$ क रूपु म4 क1 गई स अमिध क3 पु4श क1 पु्ቔ क चिलए आश्याक न्याHम 10 ष. क1 स क1 गण क चिलए शमिमल कर पुर यादिቖኔ पु4श क1 पु्ቔ आ$ हो< 3 इ कम.चारिरया2 क3 छ्ቈ$सगढ़ चिसविल सए (पु4श) वियाम, 1976 अथा छ्ቈ$ सगढ़ ( कया.भारिर था आकቦኌस्मक स पु ल कम.चार$) पु4श वियाम-1979, ज3 भा$ लगH हो3, क अग. उक् न्याHम अमिध हो पु4श क1 पु्ቔ विम् शN क अध$ ቖኔO जया-- (1) ቖኔ<विक भा3ग$ कम.चार$ क वियामिम$करण समन्या ्ቚशस विभाग क ሺኋपु ्ቅमक एफ 12-1 /2007 / 1-3 दिቖኔक 5 मचा., 2008 क अग. आकቦኌस्मक / कया.भारिर ቝኋपु अथा वियामिम ቝኋपु क पुቖኔ पुर विकया गया हो3। (2) कम.चार$ क1 ቖኔ<विक भा3ग$ क रूपु म4 विया᭝ᯙक््ቈ 1.1.89 स 31.12.1997 क1 अमिध म4 हुई हो3 था उस पुቖኔ पुर या समक्ቌ पुቖኔ पुर लगर कया. विकया हो3। (3) ्ቤ᭝ᯙक् रिरक् / स्$कR वियामिम पुቖኔ क विरू्ቍ पुቖኔቝኋ विकया गया हो3 और विभाग$या भाT वियाम2 म4 विध.रिर श<्ቌणिणक ए अन्या या3ग्या रख हो3। 7 (4) इ कम.चारिरया2 क3 उपुቖኔ क1 पु्ቔ ्ቦम वियाम2 क अग. हो3$ हो<, अ+ पु4श वियाम2 क ्ቚध2 क होY उपुቖኔ क1 पु्ቔ हो@ हो3ग$। (5) इ कम.चारिरया2 क अशቖኔया$ पु4श या3ज क सቖኔस्या हो3 क1 ᭝ᯙቝኋवि म4 उक् या3ज क अग. शस ቛኋर दिቖኔया गया विया3क् अशቖኔ ए उस पुर ब्याज क1 रचिश सቖኔቝኌभा\ ሺኋपु दिቖኔक 28.2.2018 ए 7.4.2018 क विቖኔशसर रज्या शस क3 पुस$ / समया3ज या3ग्या हो3ग$। यादिቖኔ उक् रचिश आहोरिर कर ल$ गया$ हो3 3 इसक1 पुस$ क उपुर हो$ पु4श भाग विकया जयाग। 3/ इ विቖኔश2 क अग. पु4श क1 पु्ቔ सविणि] कर क1 जिजम्मቖኔर$ कया.लया ्ቚमख क1 हो3ग$। सयाक् सचालक - क3ष, लख ए पु4श भा$ पु4श स्$कR कर समया याहो सविणि] कर4ग विक पु4श क1 पु्ቔ हो सभा$ मपुቖኔण्ड2 क पुल विकया गया हो<। छ्ቈ$सगढ़ क रज्यापुल क म स था आቖኔशसर Sd/- (एस. क . चा्ቅT ) 26/5/2018 सयाक् सचिचा 14. Perusal of aforesaid circular shows that work-charged and contingency paid employee, who has worked for 10 years as regular employee, may be eligible for pension and if 10 years service is not completed after his regularization, then, his employment as contingency paid employee will be calculated for counting minimum service of 10 years. 15. Having considered the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1979 and observation made by learned Division Bench as has been quoted here-in-above and further considering the Circular (Annexure-P/8) of the State of CG, since deceased employee had already completed 24 years of employment with the respondent-department as “Gangman” under the contingency establishment and vide order (Annexure-P/3), he was also found eligible for regularization, therefore, only because of his non-joining as regular employee in the respondent-department due to his death, his wife/petitioner cannot be deprived from getting benefit of pension, which was otherwise entitled to her husband under the Pension Rules, 1979. 8 16. In view of above discussion, I feel inclined to allow the instant petition. The impugned order dated 30.10.2019 (Annexure-P/1) is set aside/quashed and respondent authorities are directed to grant family pension and other service benefits payable to the petitioner because of death of her husband – Milan Malakar. 17. The petitioner is also entitled for arrears of pension from the date of death of the deceased employee i.e. 04.07.2008, till actual payment of amount. All aforesaid amount shall be payable within a period of 60 days from today. 18. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Rukhsar