1 CGHC010092372022 2026:CGHC:34337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1963 of 2022 1 - Smt. Kalyani Sharma W/o Late Vyasnarayan Sharma, Aged About 58 Years R/o South Vasundhara Nagar, Bhilai 3, District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Neera Bai W/o Late Ramnarayan Sahu, Aged About 42 Years R/o Urla, District Durg (C.G.) 3 - Bitwan Verma, W/o Late Bhuwan Lal Verma, Aged About 75 Years R/o Shantipara Ward No. 8, Bhilai 3 Charoda, District Durg (C.G.) 4 - Mongra Banchhor W/o Late Surendra Kumar Banchhor Aged About 69 Years R/o Shitla Para, Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Directorate, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Through Its Director, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Indiravati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Municipal Corporation, Bhilai-Charoda, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai-Charoda, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) NIRMALA RAO 2 For Petitioner/s : Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Shri Amandeep Singh, P.L. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Sandeep Dubey, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05/08/2026 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned orders dated 06/01/2021 and 03/08/2021 (Annexure P/1 Colly.), 15/12/2020, 02/02/2021, holding that petitioners are entitled for pension for the service worked by their husband as contingency employee under the contingency rules and to grant all monetary benefits with interest. 10.2 Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that these petitions have been filed by the widows of work-charged contingency- paid employees, who were appointed under the respondents. Their services were subsequently regularized. She would further submit that all the employees died during the course of their service. She would submit that after the death of the employees, the petitioners became entitled to family pension but their claims were rejected by the authority concerned on the ground that the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1980 are not applicable to contingency-paid employees, though the petitioners are claiming family pension under the Chhattisgarh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 3 1979 read with Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1975. She would submit that the issue is no more res integra, inasmuch as this Court, in WPS No.509 of 2022 directed the respondent authorities to grant family pension. She would pray for a similar order in the present case. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. They would submit that the facts of the cited case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 5. It appears that respondent No.1 has rejected the claims of the petitioners for family pension vide order dated 15.12.2020 without assigning any reasons. In the matter of Smt. Memin Bai vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors., WPS No.509 of 2022, this Court while considering the provisions of Rule 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979 directed the respondent authorities to grant family pension. The relevant paras 10, 11 and 13 are reproduced herein below: “10. Similarly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Smt. Kusum Chourasia (supra) dealt with identical circumstances. In this case, the Court held that once an employee has been brought into the regular Work-Charged Establishment, even if he dies without completing 10 or 15 years of qualifying service, his family is still entitled to the family pension under Rule 4A of the Rules of 1979, read with Rule 47 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It was held that the object of Rule 4A is to protect the family of a deceased employee who dies in harness, and therefore, even one day’s service after regularization is sufficient to extend the benefit of family pension. The relevant para-5 is 4 reproduced as under:- "5. The petitioner is wife of late Shri Anandilal Rajak whowas working in the respondents department. Late Shri Anandilal Rajak was initially appointed as a daily wages employee on 1.3.1978. He was posted as Chowkidar and subsequently he was regularized on the work charged and contingency paid employee in the establishment on 10.6.1996/18.6.1996 vide Annexures P/2 and P/3 respectively. After working for a period about 9 years work charged and in contingency paid establishment the petitioner's husband late Shri Anandilal Rajak died on 20.02.2005. After his death the petitioner claimed pension and other benefits in accordance to the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the Madhya Pradesh (Worked charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. The claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension and other benefits have been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner's husband has not completed 10 years regular services in the work charged and contingency paid establishment and therefore pension can not be granted vide impugned order Annexure P/8 dated 7.2.2007. The question with regard to period of service to be rendered in the work charged and Contingency Paid Establishment for grant of pension has been considered by this Court in Bal Kishan Patel v. State of MP and others (WP No.4357/2004) and after taking note the requirement of the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh (Worked charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and the Provisionary Rule 2(c) and Rule 4 A of the said Rules the matter is so decided. "14. "14. It is apparent that for the purpose of family pension Rule 4-A of the Pension Rules of 1979 read with Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 makes it clear that if an Incumbent has rendered not less than 7 years continuous service, family of incumbent is entitled for the family pension. It is not in dispute that deceased Jabmohan Singh Gond had rendered the contentious service for more than 7 years. Rule 6 (3) of the Pension Rules of 1979 clearly provides that without interruption for not less than 6 years such services shall be counted for pension as if such services has rendered on regular post, qualifying service has to be given effect to while considering the length of the service, as 5 specified in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1979 otherwise the purpose of fiction created of Rule (3) stands defeated. Thus the submission raised by the respondents that Rule 6(3), services cannot to be computed towards qualifying service, cannot accepted. The services which has beem rendered, as qualifying service, under Rule of the Pension Rules of 1979 has to be counted, as rendered on a regular post. Thereafter entitlement has to be determined by the respondents in accordance with law." In the case at hand the petitioner's husband was engaged on daily wage basis in the Work- charged Establishment of Rani Avantibai Sagar Project. Thereafter, by order dated 26.06.1996 was bought on regular Work Charged Establishment in grade 825-900-20-1220 as Time Keeper. The late husband of the petitioner while in service expired on 12.2.2001. The petitioner after death of her husband approached the authorities for grant of family pension. The said request was turned down by letter dated 13.09.2006 on the ground that petitioner's husband since has not rendered 10 years of service in the Work-charged establishment she was not entitled for the family pension. It is this denial which has forced the petitioner to prefer the instant-writ petition. A "Work-charged employee" is defined under Rule 2 (b) to mean 'a person employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from general supervision of a specified work or upon subordinate supervision of the departmental labour, store, running and repairs of electrical equipment and machinery in connection with such work, excluding the daily paid labour and muster- roll employee employed on the work.' Whereas, "permanent employee as defined under clause (c) of Rule 2 of Rules 1979 means "a contingency paid employee or a work- charged employee has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974: Provided that in respect of a contingency paid employee or a work charged employee who has attained the age of superannuation on or after the First April 1981, permanent employee means an employee who has completed 10 years of service on or after 1st January, 1974. 6 Rule 4A which was inserted vide notification dated 13.9.1982, pub. in M.P. Rajpatra. Pt. IV (ga), dated 26.12.1982, page 133; stipulates: "4A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 4 the family of a permanent employee who dies while in service or after retirement on pension on or after the 1st April, 1981 shall be entitled to family pension at the rate of 30% of his/her pay drawn at the time of death/retirement subject to minimum of Rs.40/- per month and maximum of Rs. 100/- per month subject to other conditions of rule 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 except sub-rule (3) of the said rule. Admittedly the aforesaid provisions have an overriding effect over Rule 4 wherein the stipulations have been laid down as to the minimum qualifying service which a person engaged on work-charged establishment should have at his credit, i.e., 10 years, before he is held entitled for grant of pension on his retirement. In other words the bar as created under Rule 4, in the considered opinion of this Court will not be attracted in case a member of a regular Work- chared establishment dies in harness; meaning thereby that even a day's service rendered by a workman brought on regular work-charged establishment in case if he dies thereafter would entitle the family of such workman for a family pension as per stipulations contained in Section 4A. The only guiding factor while applying Rule 4A. of Rules of 1979 would be the conditions stipulated in Rule 47 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979 Sub-rule (2) of Rule 47 of the Rules, 1976 stipulates; "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies- (a) While in service provided he had been medically examined and found fit for appointment under the Government. (b) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension or compassionate allowance, referred to in Chapter V on the date of death, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to contributory family pension (hereinafter in this role referred to as 7 Family Pension) the amount of which shall be determined as follows: Pay servant of Amount of month family Government servant pension (i) Below Rs.400 30 per cent of pay subject to a minimum of Rs.60 and maximum of Rs.100. (ii) Rs.400 and 15 per cent of pay subject to above but not a minimum of Rs.100 and exceeding Rs. 1200. maximum of Rs. 160. (iii) Above Rs. 12 per cent of pay subject to 1200/- a minimum of Rs.160 and maximum of Rs.250. In the present case also the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner's husband has not completed 10 years regular service in work charged and contingency paid Establishment. This could not be done. The petitioner is entitled to get pension in the head indicated in the aforesaid table even if he has not completed 10 years service. In this view of the matter rejection of petitioner's claim by the impugned order is unsustainable Accordingly the order Annexure P/8 dated 7.2.2007 is quashed, the respondents are directed to fix family pension of the petitioner within a period of 60 days and pay all arrears to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till payment. The petition stands allowed and is disposed of with the aforesaid." 11. In view of the discussion and proposition of law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of S.D. Jayaprakash (supra) and Sheela Devi (supra), as well as the consistent view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Kusum Chourasia (supra), the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of the law and is accordingly quashed. 13. Respondent No. 3 is directed to grant family pension to the petitioner with effect from the date of death of her husband i.e. 09.03.2006. The entire exercise shall be 8 completed within a period of two months from today.” 6. The petitioners are permitted to submit representations before respondents No.1 to 3 alongwith a copy of the order passed in WPS No.2696 of 2019 within a period of 150 days and in turn, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and decide the same preferably within a further period of 60 days. The authorities concerned shall consider the grounds raised in the present petition as well as the judgment passed in WPS No.2696 of 2019 while taking a decision. The earlier order passed by the respondent (Annexure-P/1) is hereby quashed. 7. With the aforesaid observation(s), this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi