Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramadhin Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1 WP-44901-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 44901 of 2025
RAMDEEN YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Chandrakant Magarde - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Akshansh Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The grievance of the petitioner is that his past services as daily wager employee are not being counted for the purpose of calculation of pension and only the services post the date of regularization are being counted for the purpose of pension.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has decided the said issue in W.P. No.1232/2021 (Bharosilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others) vide order dated 13.05.2024 and therefore, similar benefits should be granted to the present petitioner also.
3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid petition has held as under:-
"Petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by Chief Engineer(North), Water Resources Department, Gwalior whereby the representation of petitioner for counting his past services before regularization for the purpose of pension was rejected on the ground that earlier petitioner was working as Daily Wage Employee and therefore, his past services Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 20-11-2025 18:02:44 2 WP-44901-2025 can not be counted for the purpose of pension.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a similar issue came up for consideration before Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra Vs.State of M.P. & Others. in Writ Petition No. 5133/2016 which was decided on 27.7.2016 with directions to extend the benefit to the petitioner therein on the same terms and similar directions as were issued by Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.757/2007 (Rahisha Begum Vs. State of M.P. & Others). The said order was challenged by the State in Writ Appeal No.366/2017 which was decided by the order dated 1.9.2017 and after considering the objections/arguments raised by the State that judgment delivered by Full Bench in the matter of Mamta Shukla Vs. State of M.P., 2011 (3) MPLJ 210 is applicable and according to which daily wager employee is not entitled for the benefit of counting his prior service for the purpose of pension. However, after considering the arguments advanced by State, Division Bench relied on the judgment of Smt. Rahisha Begum held that even a daily wager employee is entitled for the benefit of consideration of past service which he discharged as daily wager before regularization for the purpose of pension. The order passed by the Division Bench was challenged before Supreme Court also by preferring SLP(Civil) Diary No.16700/2018 which was dismissed by order dated 18.5.2018 and consequently order in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra(Supra) has attained finality. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that judgment passed in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore, similar relief be extended to the present petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/ State submits that petitioner was not appointed by following recruitment process and his appointment was as daily wager and therefore he is not entitled for extending the benefit of considering his prior service for the purpose of calculation of pension. He relied on the circular issued by Finance Department, State of M.P. dated 6.1.2013 wherein it was directed that if employee has worked for more than 10 years as daily wager then he will be deemed as permanent employee for the purpose of pension. He further relied on the judgment of Smt. Mamta Shukla Vs. State of M.P., 2011 (3) MPLJ 210 and argued that petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of considering his past services for the purpose of calculation of pension. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 20-11-2025 18:02:44
3 WP-44901-2025 4 . Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that respondent/State is unnecessary avoiding to extend the benefit to the petitioner whereas, the other similarly situated employees of the department have been extended the benefit after relying upon the judgment passed in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra (Supra). He has pointed out from the available order dated 24.2.2020(Annexure P-7) wherein similar benefit was extended to the similar situated employee of the same department after considering the order passed in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra(Supra) and SLP(Civil) Diary No.16700/2018 was also mentioned in the order.
However, petitioner has not been extended the benefit of the same order.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that controversy has already been settled in the matter of Rahisha Begum Vs. State of M.P. and Others, 2010 (4) MPLJ 332 and same is relied in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra(Supra) after considering the judgment of Full Bench passed in the matter of Mamta Shukla (Supra). Judgment in the matter of Laxmikant Mishra (Supra) has attained finality. It has travelled up to Apex Court. Therefore, it is no more res- integra that a daily wager employee is also entitled for the benefit of counting of his past service at the time of calculation of pension. Consequently, the present petition is allowed.
6. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of past service to the petitioner for the purpose of calculation of pension. Terms and directions issued in the matter of Rahisha Begum, 2010 (4) MPLJ 332 and judgment of Laxmikant Mishra(Supra) shall be applicable to the case of petitioner as mutatis mutandis.
7. Let necessary formalities be completed within a period of three months.
8. With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of."
4. The present petition is disposed of directing the competent authority of respondents to examine the parity of the petitioner to W.P. No.1232/2021 and extend the benefits accordingly to the petitioner in case the petitioner is found to be at par after examining the parity of the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 20-11-2025 18:02:444 WP-44901-2025
5. Let the consideration be made and final decision be taken within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE vc Signature Not Verified Signed by: VARSHA CHOURASIYA Signing time: 20-11-2025 18:02:44