SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(MP) 118

ARUN MISHRA
Gopi Pillai – Appellant
Versus
M. P. E. B. , Jabalpur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.S. Jha
For Respondents/Defendant: M.L. Jaiswal

ORDER

Arun Mishra, J.

1. Common question involved in all these writ petitions is whether under Rule 42 of M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules of 1976") period spent by an employee in the work charged establishment can be counted as qualifying service.

2. Petitioners were initially taken in the service in M.P.E.B. in the work-charged establishment. They had rendered less than 10 years service in the work-charged establishment; they were absorbed in the regular establishment. However, there was no break in their service; that continued uninterruptedly pursuant to their absorption in the regular establishment.

3. Respondent M.P.E.B. decided not to count the period spent by the petitioners in the work-charged establishment as qualifying service under Rule 42 of the Rules of 1976 on the ground that Rules of 1976 are not applicable to work- charged establishment and as per Rule 12 qualifying service is only the one which is rendered by an incumbent in a substantive post either on permanent, probation or temporary basis and as per M. P. Electricity Board, the M. P. (Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short "the Rules of 1979") ar



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top