1 2025:CGHC:20759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8953 of 2019 1 - Smt. Uttara Pandey W/o Late Badri Prasad Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Konar, Police Station Mulmula, Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Acting Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanandi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - District Ayurved Officer Bilaspur Division, Nutan Colony Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Superintendent Cum District Officer Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Petitioner Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate. For Respondents : Mrs. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Dr. Yashpal Singh Dhruv, District Ayush Officer, Bilaspur / Officer In-charge of the Case is also present in person. 2 SB : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 06/05/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to place all the records including the proceeding of the Departmental Scrutiny Committee for the perusal of Hon’ble Court. 10.2 That the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to regularize the services of late Badri Prasad from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 07.11.1983 and also to give all consequential benefits including pension till the date of his death and thereafter to the petitioner, being his widow. 10.3. Such other relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit may also be given to the petitioner. 3. Facts of the case in brief, as projected by the petitioner, is that the petitioner is unfortunate widow of late Badri Prasad Pandey, who was initially appointed as Aushdhalaya Sewak under the Health Department (Ayurvedic Chikitsa) on 07.11.1983 vide Annexure P-1 for a period 89 days. Thereafter, he (husband of the petitioner) was appointed on Ad-hoc basis with monthly salary of Rs. 380/- and in the prevailing pay scale of Rs.380-5-425-10-495 vide order dated 29.05.1984 (Annexure P-2). Subsequently, on being false complaint made against husband of the petitioner that he had tampered with the date of birth in his mark-sheet of 8th class in order to get appointment, one Criminal case No. 178 / 1996 {Crime No. 192/1990} for the offences under Sections 3 468, 471 & 420 of the IPC was registered against him at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur and he was arrested. After registration of aforesaid criminal case and due to detention, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.04.1992, but in the said criminal case, he was acquitted of the alleged charges by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur vide judgment dated 10.07.1996 and after his acquittal, his suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service vide order dated 05.01.1999. Thereafter, he is superannuated on 30.06.2016, despite that his service was regularized with effect from 27.01.2016. Thus, late husband of petitioner worked with Respondent Department for more than 30 years, despite that his service was regularized belatedly and even he / his wife (petitioner) was not granted pension. Therefore, petitioner has filed instant petition seeking relief as has been stated in opening paragraph of this order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while referring to his pleadings, would submit that, after reinstatement of petitioner’s husband in service, he worked under District Ayurveda Office, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur and superannuated on 30.06.2016. Thereafter, he expired on 01.03.2019. Learned counsel further submits that despite such long service, husband of the petitioner was not regularized in his service, therefore, writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 3918 / 2018 has been filed by him before this Court on 14.07.2008 and in pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2015 passed by this court in the said writ petition, case of petitioner's husband was considered and, thereafter, his services was regularized w.e.f. 27.01.2016 vide order dated 4.2.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by District Ayurved Officer, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur / respondent No. 2 herein. It is further contended that regular time scale was already granted to late Badri Prasad Pandey (husband of the petitioner) vide order dated 29.05.1984, thus, he completed more than 15 years of his service 4 in the year 2000, despite that his service was not regularized from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 07.11.1983 or his service ought to have been regularized from 5th March, 2008 when Circular (Annexure R-1) in this regard was issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department in compliance of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) And Others reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1. As such, he prayed that relief sought for may be granted to the petitioner. 5. The State has filed its reply stating that appointment of Badri Prasad Pandey (husband of the petitioner) was made on ad hoc and temporary basis and he was put under suspension because of registration of criminal case against him. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/ State while referring to its reply would submit that after reinstatement of the services of the petitioner’s husband vide order dated 05.01.1999, though he was served with the office of respondent No. 2 and superannuated on 30.06.2016, but his employment was regularized vide order dated 04.02.2016 (Annexure P-8) with effect from 27.01.2016. She further submits that since 10 years of regularization of petitioner’s husband in service was not completed, therefore, she is not entitled to get pension, hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. When specific question was posed to the State Counsel, who is present alongwith Officer-Incharge of the case, that as to service conditions of the husband (deceased) of the petitioner shall be governed by which Rule, she submits that his service condition will be governed by the provisions contained 5 in Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Condition of Service Rule, 1975. 9. Undisputedly, husband of the petitiotner namely late Badri Prasad Pandey was initially appointed as a Casual Labourer in contingency fund on daily wages for a period of 89 days. Subsequently, he was appointed on Ad- hoc basis with monthly salary of Rs. 380/- and in the prevailing pay scale of Rs.380-5-425-10-495 vide order dated 29.05.1984 (Annexure P-2). Though, he was remained suspended from 10.04.1992 to 05.01.1999 because one Criminal case No. 178 / 1996 {Crime No. 192/1990} for the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC registered against him at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, but in that criminal case, he has been acquitted of the alleged charges vide judgment dated 10.7.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur. Thereafter, his suspension was revoked vide order dated 05.01.1999 passed by Divisional Officer, Ayurved, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur (C.G.) and in pursuance thereof, he was again kept in service, thereafter, he worked there till his superannuation on 30.6.2016. Thus, husband of the petitioner worked with the Respondent-Department for more than 30 years, despite that his service was regularized with too much delay, vide order dated 4.2.2016 with effect from 27.01.2016 (Annexure P-8), that too, in pursuance of the order dated 08.10.2015 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3918 of 2008. Thus, regularization of husband of petitioner in service after such long period of 30 years, cannot seem to be justified whereas State Government itself had issued Circular dated 05.03.2008 (Annexure R-1) in compliance of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State Of Karnataka and others vs Umadevi (3) And Others (supra) for regularization of daily wager and ad hoc employees of class III & Class IV category. 6 10. Though, deceased/ husband of the petitioner worked with the Respondents-department for more than 30 years, but nothing has been brought by the petitioner/wife on record to accept her contention that deceased/husband ought to have been regularized from the year 1983 or prior to year 2008, but since vide Circular dated 5th March, 2008, State Government has taken a measure for regularization of daily wager employees and Ad hoc employees of Class III & Class IV category, therefore, it would be appropriate to regularize services of the husband of petitioner at-least with effect from 05.03.2008 i.e. from issuance of Circular dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure R-1) by the State Government. In that view of the matter, it is found to be appropriate to direct the respondents authorities to regularise service of the petitioner's husband late Badri Prasad Pandey from 05.03.2008 instead of 27.01.2016. 11. Even after regularization of services of the petitioner's husband, she (petitioner) will not be entitled for pension because as per Rule 2 (c) of Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (henceforth, “Pension Rules, 1979”), after regularization of deceased employee i.e. on 27.01.2016, he was superannuated on 30.06.2016 and expired on 01.03.2019, as such, he could not have completed 10 years of service after his regularization, but for eligibility of Pension to the regular employee of work-charged / contingency establishment, the State of Chhattisgarh has issued Circular dated 26.05.2018, which reads thus:- वित्त विर्देश 30/2018 छत्तीसगढ़ शास वित्त विभाग मंत्रालय, महार्देी भ, या रायपुर क्र. 249/ एफ 2018-04-04169/वि/वि/ चार या रायपुर, विर्देांक 26 मई, 2018 प्रति , शास के समस् विभाग, 7 अध्यक्ष, राजस् मण्डल, विलासपुर, समस् विभागाध्यक्ष, समस् संभागीय आयुक्त. समस् जिजलाध्यक्ष, छत्तीसगढ़ विषयः- सामान्य प्रशास विभाग के ज्ञाप क्रमांक एफ 12-1/2007/1-3 विर्देांक 5 माच0, 2008 के अं ग0 वियविम हुए शासकीय सेकों को पेंश की पात्र ा के संबंध में। संर्देभ0ः- 1. वित्त विभाग का ज्ञाप क्रमांक 79 / एल 2017-04-00364 / वि / वि / चार, या रायपुर विर्देांक 28.2.2018 2. वित्त विभाग का ज्ञाप क्रमांक 173 / एफ 2018-04-04169 / वि / वि / चार, या रायपुर, विर्देांक 7.4.2018 --------- सामान्य प्रशास विभाग के विषयांविक ज्ञाप के अं ग0 काय0भारिर /आकस्मिस्मक ा स्थापा में वियविम हुए र्देैविक े भोगी कम0चारिरयों को छत्तीसगढ़ ( काय0भारिर था आकस्मिस्मक ा से े पाे ाले कम0चारी) पेंश वियम 1979 के प्राधाों के अं ग0 10 ष0 से अातिधक सेा होे एं अंशर्देायी पेंश योजा के सर्देस्य होे के कारण पेंश की पात्र ा हीं हो ी है। माीय उच्च न्यायालय में र्देायर यातिचका क्रमांक W.P.(S) No. 129/2012 विबहारी लाल जायसाल विरूद्ध छ०ग० शास एं W.P.(A) No. 209/2013 राम अ ार मा0 विरूद्ध छ०ग० शास में पारिर आर्देेश विर्देांक 26.2.2015 के परिरपाल में यातिचकाक ा0ओं की र्देैविक े भोगी कम0चारी के रूप में की गयी सेा अतिध को पेंश की पात्र ा के लिलए 10 ष0 की न्यू म सेा की सीमा क गणा हे ु शाविमल करे के विर्देश जारी विकये गये है। 2/ राज्य शास द्वारा विण0य लिलया गया है विक सामान्य प्रशास विभाग के विषयांविक ज्ञाप विर्देांक 5 माच0, 2008 के प्राधाों के अं ग0 वियविम स्थापा अथा काय0भारिर / आकस्मिस्मक ा स्थापा में वियविम विकये गये र्देैविक े भोगी कम0चारिरयों की र्देैविक े भोगी के रूप में की गई सेा अतिध को पेंश की पात्र ा के लिलए आश्यक न्यू म 10 ष0 की सेा की गणा के लिलए शाविमल करे पर यविर्दे पेंश की पात्र ा आ ी है ो इ कम0चारिरयों को छत्तीसगढ़ जिसविल सेाएं (पेंश) वियम, 1976 अथा छत्ती सगढ़ ( काय0भारिर था आकस्मिस्मक ा से े पाे ाले कम0चारी) पेंश वियम-1979, जो भी लागू हो, के अं ग0 उक्त न्यू म अतिध हे ु पेंश की पात्र ा विम् श K के अधी र्देी जाये-- (1) र्देैविक े भोगी कम0चारी का वियविम ीकरण सामान्य प्रशास विभाग के ज्ञाप क्रमांक एफ 12-1 /2007 / 1-3 विर्देांक 5 माच0, 2008 के अं ग0 आकस्मिस्मक ा / काय0भारिर स्थापा अथा वियविम स्थापा के पर्दे पर विकया गया हो। (2) कम0चारी की र्देैविक े भोगी के रूप में वियुस्मिLत्त 1.1.89 से 31.12.1997 की अतिध में हुई हो था उस पर्दे पर या समकक्ष पर्दे पर लगा ार काय0 विकया हो। (3) व्यविक्त रिरक्त / स्ीकृ वियविम पर्दे के विरूद्ध पर्देस्थ विकया गया हो और विभागीय भ P वियमों में विधा0रिर शैक्षणिणक एं अन्य योग्य ा रख ा हो। 8 (4) इ कम0चारिरयों को उपार्देा की पात्र ा श्रम वियमों के अं ग0 हो ी है, अ ः पेंश वियमों के प्राधाों के ह ् उपार्देा की पात्र ा हीं होगी। (5) इ कम0चारिरयों के अंशर्देायी पेंश योजा के सर्देस्य होे की स्मिस्थति में उक्त योजा के अं ग0 शास द्वारा विर्देये गये वियोक्ता अंशर्देा एं उस पर ब्याज की राणिश संर्देर्भिभ ज्ञाप विर्देांक 28.2.2018 एं 7.4.2018 के विर्देशाुसार राज्य शास को ापसी / समायोज योग्य होगी। यविर्दे उक्त राणिश आहरिर कर ली गयी हो ो इसकी ापसी के उपरां ही पेंश भुग ा विकया जायेगा। 3/ इ विर्देशों के अं ग0 पेंश की पात्र ा सुवितिX करे की जिजम्मेर्देारी काय0लय प्रमुख की होगी। संयुक्त संचालक - कोष, लेखा एं पेंश भी पेंश स्ीकृ कर े समय यह सुवितिX करेंगे विक पेंश की पात्र ा हे ु सभी मापर्देण्डों का पाल विकया गया है। छत्तीसगढ़ के राज्यपाल के ाम से था आर्देेशाुसार Sd/- (एस. के . चक्र P ) 26/5/2018 संयुक्त सतिच 12. 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, period of his employment as work- charged and contingency paid employee will be calculated for counting minimum service of 10 years for the purpose of grant of pension. Nothing has been brought by the respondents to substantiate the fact that late husband of petitioner was not fulfilling the criteria mentioned in aforesaid circular. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, I feel inclined to allow the instant writ petition in part. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed. Respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the issue of regularization of service of the petitioner's husband – late Badri Prasad Pandey from 5.3.2008 instead 9 of 27.01.2016 and accordingly grant him / his wife (petitioner) revised pay scale as per Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Revision of Pay Rules, 1977. It is further directed that for the purpose of grant of pension to the petitioner’s husband / petitioner, period of service of deceased employee (husband of the petitioner) as contingency paid employee be calculated for counting minimum service of 10 years and grant petitioner’s husband / petitioner pension as per the Pension Rules, 1979. 14. Let this exercise be concluded by Respondent authorities expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt / submission of copy of this order. 15. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Amit Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.05.27 13:05:23 +0530