Principal Secretary & Ors. vs Chandra Mohan Agarwal

Per: Justice B. P. Sharma

Regard being had to the similitude of issue involved, all these cases are heard analogously and decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of Writ Appeal No. 1019/2026 are taken into consideration.

This appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by the appellants/State assailing the common order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17463 of 2010 and other connected writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petitions by holding that the services rendered by the writ petitioners as monthly paid Daily Rated employees beyond fifteen years prior to their regularization are liable to be calculated for the limited purpose of computation of qualifying service for pension under the provisions of the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979, subject to the limitations and conditions specifically incorporated in the operative portion of the judgment.

Having considered to the explanation submitted in the application, we find that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The explanation furnished by the appellants constitutes sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, I.A. No.6272 of 2026 deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The delay of 96 days in filing the present writ appeal is condoned. The appeal is accordingly taken up for final hearing on merits.

The respondent herein was initially engaged by the Water Resources Department as a Daily Rated employee on 12.02.1973. It is not in dispute that after rendering service for a considerable period, his services came to be regularized on the post of Senior Technical Assistant by order dated 27.02.1978. The respondent thereafter continued in regular service until attaining the age of superannuation on 30.12.2004. Upon retirement, pensionary benefits were extended by taking into account only the period of regular service rendered after regularization, whereas the services rendered by the respondent as a Daily Rated employee prior to regularization were excluded while computing qualifying service for pension. Being dissatisfied with such exclusion, the respondent approached this Court by filing W.P. No.17463 of 2010 praying that the services rendered by him prior to regularization be calculated for the purposes of pension in accordance with the provisions of the Pension Rules of 1979. Similar writ petitions raising identical questions were also filed by several other employees serving in different departments of the State Government. Since the controversy involved in all the writ petitions was common, they were heard together and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common impugned order dated 27.09.2025.

Before the learned Single Judge, it was principally contended by the writ petitioners that though they were described by the State as Daily Rated employees, they were in fact monthly paid employees receiving wages from contingency funds. According to them, such employees acquired the status contemplated under Rule 2(c) of the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 after completion of the prescribed qualifying service and, therefore, the services rendered by them prior to regularization could not be ignored for the limited purpose of pension. The learned Single Judge undertook statutory framework governing the service conditions of Daily Rated employees and Pension Rules as well as the judgments rendered by the Full Benches of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2006 (1) MPLJ 23, Ashok Tiwari v. M.P. Text Book Corporation 2010 (2) MPLJ 662 and Mamta Shukla (Smt.) v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2011 (3) MPLJ 210 . Upon such consideration, the learned Single Judge held that the services rendered by the petitioners beyond fifteen years as monthly paid Daily Rated employees were liable to be calculated for computation of qualifying service for pension, while specifically restricting such benefit only to pensionary computation and not for any other service advantage.

Learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in law in treating the Full Bench judgment in Mamta Shukla (supra) as distinguishable and in granting pensionary benefits to Daily Rated employees. It has been asserted that the respondent did not hold a pensionable post during the period prior to regularization and, therefore, such service could not legally be taken into consideration for computation of qualifying service. According to the appellants, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the distinction between a Daily Rated employee and a Contingency Paid employee and has consequently travelled beyond the statutory scheme while granting the impugned relief. The State has further contended that the judgment under appeal is inconsistent with the law laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Ashok Tiwari (supra) and therefore, deserves to be set aside by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

It is further contended that learned Single Judge has committed a manifest error in allowing the writ petitions by extending the benefit of pension to employees who admittedly entered service as Daily Rated employees and who were regularized only subsequently under the Government policies. It was argued that the respondent cannot claim parity with employees appointed against sanctioned pensionable posts. According to the him, the Pension Rules of 1979 contemplate benefits only in respect of employees who satisfy the statutory requirements and the learned Single Judge has enlarged the scope of the Rules by judicial interpretation. It was further submitted that the Full Bench judgment in Mamta Shukla (supra) squarely governs the controversy and unequivocally holds that the services rendered as Daily Rated employees cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. According to the appellants, learned Single Judge has committed an error in preferring the reasoning adopted in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra) and in holding that the subsequent Full Bench judgment would not govern the facts of the present case. Learned Govt. Advocate further argued that a Daily Rated employee neither holds a substantive post nor serves under any statutory recruitment rules. Merely because wages were disbursed monthly, such payment by itself would not convert the status of a Daily Rated employee into that of a Contingency Paid employee. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to properly appreciate the ratio laid down by the Full Bench in Ashok Tiwari (supra) as well as the subsequent decisions following Mamta Shukla (supra). On these premises, it was prayed that the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.

8 . Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order in its entirety and submitted that the impugned order neither travels beyond the statutory framework nor grants any benefit dehors the provisions of law. It was contended that the learned Single Judge has undertaken an proper examination of the Pension Rules, govt. policies relating to regularization before arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners, though described as Daily Rated employees, were in fact monthly paid employees receiving wages from contingency funds. According to him, the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the distinction between a mere nomenclature assigned by the employer and the actual nature of employment. It was submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are essentially findings of fact based upon the statutory scheme governing such employees and, therefore, do not warrant interference in this appeal.

Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not granted unrestricted or full relief to the writ petitioners. The directions contained in the operative part of the judgment have been consciously confined to the limited purpose of computation of qualifying service for pension. The learned Single Judge has categorically clarified that the period directed to be calculated shall not confer any additional service benefit relating to pay fixation, seniority, promotion, arrears of salary or any other service advantage. It was, therefore, argued that the grievance raised by the appellants proceeds on an incorrect assumption that the learned Single Judge has treated the entire period of Daily Rated service as regular service, whereas the order itself restricts the relief only for pensionary computation.

Learned Counsel also invited our attention to the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Pannalal v. Public Works Department and Others (Writ Appeal No.827 of 2019) , wherein analogous issues relating to pensionary entitlement of employees governed by the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 came up for consideration. It was submitted that in the said decision, the Division Bench considered the nature of employment, the applicability of the Pension Rules and the competing Full Bench judgments before examining the claim of the employees. The Division Bench, proceeded to decide the controversy on merits and held that a work-charged or contingency-paid employee who attains permanent status and completes the prescribed qualifying service becomes entitled to pension, upon absorption to a regular pensionable post without interruption. The said decision squarely covers with this case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records.

The controversy involved in the present appeal is essentially confined to the correctness of the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge upon the provisions of the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 while examining the status of employees who were initially engaged as Daily Rated employees and were subsequently regularized under the Government policies. It is evident from a reading of the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has not rested his conclusions upon any isolated statutory provision. The order reflects a detailed examination of the Recruitment and Pension Rules relating to regularization, and relevant codes. Equally significant is the fact that the learned Single Judge has consciously restricted the relief granted to the writ petitioners. The operative portion of the order does not direct regularization from the initial date of appointment, nor does it confer any benefit relating to seniority, promotional avenues, pay fixation or arrears of salary. The learned Single Judge has confined the benefit only to the computation of qualifying service for pension after completion of the prescribed period and has expressly observed that the period so calculated shall not apply for any purpose other than pension.

At the outset, learned Single Judge has undertaken an exhaustive examination of the statutory scheme governing Daily Rated Employees, Work Charged Employees and Contingency Paid Employees by referring to the provisions contained in the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979, the relevant Recruitment Rules and policies relating to regularization as well as the applicable provisions contained in the Finance Code, Treasury Code and Works Department Manual. The conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge are therefore, the result of an elaborate discussion of both facts and law and cannot be said to have been recorded without due application of mind.

The principal contention advanced by the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has erred in distinguishing the Full Bench judgment rendered in Mamta Shukla (supra). A careful reading of the impugned order, however, demonstrates that the learned Single Judge has not ignored the aforesaid decision. On the contrary, the judgment contains an elaborate discussion of Vishnu Mutiya (supra) and Mamta Shukla (supra) and thereafter, record reasons for adopting the interpretation ultimately reflected in the operative directions. In Mamta Shukla (supra), the Full Bench held that an employee who falls within the definition of a Work-Charged or Contingency Paid Employee under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979 is entitled to have the period of past service rendered in such capacity reckoned towards qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension and other retiral benefits in accordance with provisions of the Pension Rules, 1979.

In the case of Rahisha Begum v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (4) M.P.L.J. 332, the Division Bench held that a contingency-paid employee, namely a person employed on a full-time basis in an office or establishment and paid monthly wages, is entitled to the benefit of pension under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979. The correctness of the said decision subsequently came up for consideration before the Full Bench in Mamta Shukla (supra). The Full Bench affirmed that an employee who falls within the definition of a Work-Charged or Contingency Paid Employee under the Pension Rules, 1979 is entitled to have his past service counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits in accordance with the said Rules. It was further categorically held that the decision in Rahisha Begum (supra) does not suffer from the vice of being per incuriam. Thus, the judgment in Mamta Shukla (supra) also supports the claim of the respondents.

Further, in Vishnu Mutiya (supra), which continues to hold the field and has not been overruled, the Full Bench authoritatively held that the post of Gangman falls within the ambit of Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees as defined under Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976. Consequently, when the ratio laid down in Vishnu Mutiya (supra) is read with the principles enunciated in Mamta Shukla (supra), it becomes evident that Gangmen, being Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees within the meaning of the relevant Rules are also entitled to pension under the Pension Rules, 1979. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the decisions of Mamta Shukla (supra) and Vishnu Mutiya (supra) unmistakably leads to the conclusion that the present respondents are legally entitled to pensionary benefits under the Pension Rules, 1979. Therefore, the submission advanced by the State that the binding precedents have altogether been ignored is therefore, not borne out from the record.

The respondents have rightly placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Pannalal (supra). The said judgment reiterates that claims relating to pension are required to be examined keeping in view the statutory framework governing the employees concerned and that the Court is required to interpret the relevant service rules harmoniously. The Division Bench, while considering similar issues relating to pensionary entitlement, declined to adopt a purely technical approach and examined the statutory provisions governing the service conditions of the employees. Though the facts in every case may not be identical, the principles governing adjudication of pensionary disputes, as recognised in the said judgment, support the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge in the present case.

The memorandum of appeal filed by the State substantially reiterates the very submissions which were advanced before the learned Single Judge. The contentions regarding the applicability of the Pension Rules, the distinction between Daily Rated employees and Contingency Paid employees, the interpretation of the Full Bench decisions and the alleged effect of Mamta Shukla (supra) were all specifically urged before the learned Single Judge. Those submissions have been duly considered and answered by assigning detailed reasons. The present appeal does not demonstrate that any material contention remained unnoticed or that any relevant statutory provision escaped consideration. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the learned Single Judge committed any error warranting appellate interference.

Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is a well-reasoned and well-discussed. The learned Single Judge has meticulously examined the pleadings, considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, analysed the statutory provisions as well as the judicial precedents cited before the Court and thereafter recorded findings supported by cogent reasons. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the writ appeals, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The common order dated 27.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.17463 of 2010 and other connected matters are hereby affirmed.