1 2025:CGHC:15155 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4266 of 2020 1 - Smt. Umthi Bai @ Khorbahrin Sahu W/o Late Barsen Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Boierdih, Tehsil - Chhuriya District - Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, (C.G.) 2 - Superintendent Engineer Pwd Durg Mandal District - Durg (Chhattisgarh), District : Durg, (C.G.) 3 - Excutive Engineer Pwd (B And R) Division Office, Rajnandgaon District - Rajnandgaon. (Chhattisgarh), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate. For Respondents : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 27/03/2025 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking following relief :- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to produce the entire records for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. 2 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to grant fixed regular pay scale under the rules from the date when the petitioner attained the status of permanent workcharged paid employee. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court direct the respondents to give all benefits payable to a permanent workcharged paid employee. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed on 24.05.1999 under compassionate appointment scheme after death of her husband namely Late Barsen, who was working as a Permanent Gangman in the PWD (B&R) Department at Sub- Division Khairagarh, Dist – Rajnandgaon. The petitioner was appointed as permanent Gangman in service and even after lapse of 20 years, till filing of instant petition, she had not been paid regular pay scale, therefore, the petitioner has filed instant petition seeking aforesaid reliefs. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the petitioner was appointed as “permanent Gangman” in the Respondents- Department, as such, her service condition will govern under 'Model Rule' namely Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rule, 1975. He would further submit that as per Rule 2(c) of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (henceforth “ Pension Rule, 1979”), contingency and work-charged employees, who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974 would be permanent 3 employee. In the instant case, the petitioner has completed 15 years of service as work-charged employee with the Respondents-Department, therefore, for pension purpose, she had completed requisite requirement of 15 years on 23.05.2014, as such, she is entitled to get pay scale as per Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revisions of Pay Rules, 1977, wherein the post of ‘Gangman’ was shown at Serial No. (xxvii) in Annexure-1, Revised Scale of Pay (See Rule 3), under the column “name of the post held by a workcharged or contingency paid employee”, therefore, relief, as sought for, may be granted to the petitioner. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Full Bench in the matter of Vishnu and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & others 1 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while referring to its reply would submit that petitioner’s husband was a permanent Gangman and after his death, the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground, as such, her salary was paid as per Collector rate. Since the employment of the petitioner was not regularized by the Department, as she was appointed in the year 1999, whereas, cut of date was provided in Circular dated 05.03.2008 is “31.12.1997” and the persons, who are appointed after aforesaid period are not eligible to claim for regularization, therefore, employment of the petitioner has not been regularized, as such, she is not entitled to receive pay scale as per Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1977, hence, the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto and also examined the relevant provisions of aforesaid Rules 1 2006 (1) MPHT 374 4 6. During course of submission, when specific question was posed to learned Counsel for the State that service conditions of the work-charged and contingency paid employee of Public Work Department are governed under which Rule, then she could not apprise the Court that, under which rule service conditions of such employees are governed, rather she stated that granting pension to work-charged and contingency paid employee are governed under Chhattisgarh (Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. 7. Government of Chhattisgarh has framed 'Model Rule' for the Departments namely “Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975 (henceforth, “Rules, 1975”). Vide said Rule, 1975, recruitment & service conditions of the employees are governed. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) has also framed Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 whereby pension of such category of employees is governed. 8. Pay scale of work-charged and contingency paid employee is governed by Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1977, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, wherein the post of Gangman was shown at serial No. (xxvii) in Annexure-1, Revised Scale of Pay (See Rule 3), under the column “name of the post held by a workcharged or contingency paid employee”. 5 9. A conjoint reading of Rule 1975, Rule 1977 and Rule 1979 shows that there is a post naming “Gangman” engaged by the respondent Department of State of Chhattisgarh and to regulate their service conditions, pay-scale, pension, etc., aforesaid Rules have been framed by the State Government under the authority of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Though, in Rule 1975, there is no specific provision regarding regularization or granting permanent status to the employees. But Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1979 provides the definition of ‘Permanent Employee’ which reads as under :- “2(c). ‘Permanent employee’ 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.” 10. Thus, as per Rule 2(c) of the Rules, 1979, work-charged and contingency paid employee shall attained the status of “permanent employee” after completion of fifteen years of service or more. 11. Work-charged and contingency paid employee are the employees of class IV category. Taking undue advantage of their pitiable condition, authorities did not pass appropriate order with regard to their regularization or granting them permanent status, even after lapse of 15 year or more than that. Though, after passing of the judgment in the matter of Secretary, State Of Karnataka and others vs Umadevi (3) And Others2, the State Government has issued Circular in the year 2008 for regularization of contingency / work-charged employee but only on the garb of that order, State Government cannot exploit the fate of low paid employee, who have 2 2006 (4) SCC 1 6 worked for more than 15 years with respondent-Department, only because competent authority has not passed order. 12. Further, Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Lakhanram Sahu & others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others and other connected cases 3 has observed in paragraph 8, which reads as under :- “8. The Appellants/Petitioners were appointed in different department on daily wages. Rule 6 of the Contingency Rules, 1975, provides that the work-charged establishment shall consist of ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’ employees. Rule 7 of the Contingency Rules, 1975, provides for appointment from three different sources viz. Direct recruitment, promotion and transfer. Rule 4(2)(b) of the Contingency Rules, 1975, provides that those appointed after promulgation of the Contingency Rules, 1975, would acquire status of temporary employees after completion of five years of service. If the acquisition of temporary status is by 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 requirements but will still remain at the mercy of the Respondents who may or may not issue the necessary formal order rendering the 3 Writ Appeal No. 281 of 2013 and other connected cases, decided on 26.02.2025 7 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. 13. Full bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Vishnu And others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (supra) has held as under :- “13. While deciding the Gulab Singh v. State of M.P. and others4, the 1977 Rules and Pension Rules of 1979 were not brought to the notice of the Court. Under Rules 6 of 1976 Rules the employees who were in service for at least fifteen years on 1-1-1974 were eligible for the status of permanent work charged or contingency paid employees. This has been made more liberal by the 1979 Rules. Rule 2(c) of the 1979 Rules lays down that a contingency paid employee or a work-charge employee becomes permanent employee whenever he completes fifteen years of his service though it may be after 1- 1-1974. 15. It is well known principle of law that when two different Rules contain different provisions the one which is more beneficial to the employees has to be accepted in the welfare state. xxx xxx xxx 4 W.P. No. 5484 of 2002, delivered on 10.02.2005 8 14. Recently, in the matter of Jaggo vs. Union of India 5 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between “illegal” and “irregular” appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended 5 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 9 periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 15. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on the post of permanent Gangman on 24.05.1999 on compassionate ground after death of her husband, thus despite lapse of 20 years till filing of the instant petition i.e. 4.10.2020, she was not granted status of permanent employee / regular employee, which is against the provisions contained in Rule 2(c) of Pension Rules, 1979, as after completion of 15 years of service i.e. in the year 2014, the petitioner ought to have granted status of permanent / regular employee, as such, she has to be granted fixed regular pay scale as per Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1977, which has not been granted by respondent authorities, therefore, I feel inclined to allow the instant petition. 16. Consequently, this petition is allowed. Respondent authorities are directed to grant fixed regular pay scale to the petitioner, under Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1977 from the date when the petitioner was completed 15 years of service as work-charged employee i.e. from 10 23.05.2014. 17. As informed by counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been retired from service on 31.10.2020 during pendency of the instant writ petition, therefore, the respondents are also directed to grant pension to petitioner in accordance with Rules, 1979. 18. Let this exercise be got done expeditiously preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt / submission of copy of this order. No cost (s). Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.05 12:13:23 +0530