Back
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, VIVEK RUSIA
Pannalal – Appellant
Versus
Public Works Department – Respondent
ORDER
Rusia, J. 1. Since the controversies in these writ appeals are identical in nature, therefore, with the joint request of the parties, these appeals are analogously heard and being decided by this common order. The appellants / writ petitioners have filed the present Writ Appeals under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the common order dated 6.8.2018 passed by the Writ Court, whereby all the writ petitions have been dismissed by denying the benefit of pension to the petitioners therein.
2. All the writ petitioners were appointed on the post of Gangman in the M.P. Public Works Department. After attaining the age of superannuation, they retired from the service from the post of Gangman. The date of appointment, date of retirement and period of service are as under :--
3. The writ petitioners approached the Writ Court claiming pension under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (in short 'the Pension Rules of 1979') on the ground that under the definition of Rule 2(C), they had acquired the status of “permanent employee” after completion of 15 year
Employees as Daily Rated Workers can count their pre-regularization service for pension if employed monthly and after 15 years, following the stipulations of the relevant Pension Rules.
Daily wagers' service against unsanctioned posts counts towards pensionable service under MCS (Pension) Rules if regularized; pre-New Pension Scheme appointees entitled to Old Scheme despite later re....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
