Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rajkali Pandey vs Awadhesh Pratap Singh University on 30 October, 2025
1 WP-21604-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21604 of 2021
SMT. RAJKALI PANDEY
Versus
AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH UNIVERSITY
Appearance:
Shri Rohit Sohgaura - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Divy Krishna Bilaiya - Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
ORDER
The present Petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command to give family pension to the petitioner with effect from 2017 onwards with interest on the amount of arrears of pension at 12% per annum, immediately.
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents to settle retrial benefits of the Petitioner's Husband and further direct to grant the arrears of Pension with effect from date of superannuation with interest on the amount of arrears of pension at 12% per annum, immediately.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court finds the petitioner to be entitled be also granted.
(iv) Cost of the petition.Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM
2 WP-21604-2021
2. The necessary factual background for the purpose of disposal of the present Petition is that the husband of Petitioner was initially engaged in the Respondent/University on Daily wages basis in the year 1985 and thereafter, he was taken in work-charged Establishment in regular pay scale as payable to work charged employees in the scale of 775-1200/- vide Order Annexure P-1 dated 30.11.1991. The deceased husband of Petitioner namely Shri Motilal Pandey ultimately attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years on 31.07.2010 but due to some error in maintaining record of the University, he was continued in service up to 26.04.2012 and when the error was detected he was retired vide Annexure P-5 dated 26.04.2012 w.e.f. 31.07.2010.
3. Another unconnected event took place that the salary paid to the deceased husband of Petitioner from 01.08.2010 till 26.04.2012 was ordered to be recovered and the recovery part has been set aside by this Court in a separate proceeding in Writ Petition No.12558/2012.
4. The deceased employee expired in the year 2017 and the Petitioner is before this Court seeking benefit of Pension. It is contended that as per Statute No.31 framed by the University (Annexure R-1), laying down service conditions for University Employees, Appendix-A lays down the post of Time Keeper in Entry 10 for Class III employees. It is further contended that the name of deceased employee was there in the list of employees working against pensionable post prepared by the University vide Annexure R-3 on 29.11.1997 wherein the name of deceased husband of Petitioner appears at bottom of Class III employees and post of Time Keeper is shown which is at page 20 of reply of the Respondent/University.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM3 WP-21604-2021
5. Therefore, it is the case of Petitioner that in accordance with Madhya Pradesh Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979, the Petitioner's husband had earned eligibility to be paid Pension because he had completed pensionable service even if his actual service tenure is counted till 31.07.2010 because he had completed more than 10/15 years of service as per clause 2 (c) of Rules of 1979.
6 . Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the Respondent/University by referring to List Annexure R-2 that in the list of direct recruitment sanctioned posts of Class I, II, III and IV prepared vide Annexure R-2, the post of Time Keeper is not shown therefore, the husband of Petitioner was not working against any sanctioned post. It is further contended that the husband of Petitioner was already covered under Employees Provident Fund Scheme governed under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and therefore, he cannot claim now to be entitled for Pension under Rules of 1979. It is further contended that prior to being given the status of work charged employee, the husband of petitioner was a Daily rated employee and his services would not qualify for pension. On this ground, it is prayed to dismiss the Petition.
7. Heard.
8. The question that arises for determination in the present case is that whether the husband of Petitioner was working against a pensionable post. The respondents have vehemently relied on a chart Annexure R-2 which is a chart prepared by Registrar of the University in which the post of Time Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 4 WP-21604-2021 Keeper is not mentioned. However, the said chart would not over-ride the provisions of the Statute-30 which is statutory in nature and framed under Section 35 (d)(n) of M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 in which the post of Time Keeper is duly shown in entry 10 of List of Class III employees in Appendix-A. Therefore, the contention of the University that the husband of Petitioner was not working against any sanctioned post cannot be accepted by this Court and is hereby discarded. This Court is further bolstered in its opinion by a bare perusal of the List Annexure R-3 placed on record by the Respondents themselves in which a list of employees working against pensionable posts is prepared as far back as on 29.11.1997 wherein the name of deceased husband of Petitioner namely Shri Motilal Pandey appears at S.No.33 of the List of Class III employees which is available at page 20 of reply of Respondent/University. Therefore, it has to be held by this Court that the husband of Petitioner was working against a sanctioned post and the post was pensionable in nature in accordance with Rules of 1979.
9. As per Rule 2 (c) of Rules of 1979, a contingency or work charged employee after completing 15 years of service or more after 01.01.1974 or one who retires on or after 01.01.1981 would acquire the status of permanent employee upon completion of 15 or 10 years of service respectively. The husband of Petitioner had completed 19 years of service up to the due date of superannuation i.e, 31.07.2010 on which he attained the age of 60 years. Therefore, the deceased husband of Petitioner got entitled to receive Pension and the Petitioner got entitled to receive the family pension. So far as the objection of University that deceased husband of the Petitioner was covered Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 5 WP-21604-2021 under EPF Scheme is concerned, the University can at best recover the amount of Employers contribution remitted to EPF Organization with interest as applicable on EPF deposits from time to time.
10. Consequently, the present Petition is allowed with the following directions:-
i) The respondents shall pay pension to the Petitioner in accordance with provisions of Rules of 1979 by by treating length of service of deceased employee up to 31.07.2010 but actual payment of Pension shall be made from 27.04.2012.
ii) The Petitioner would also be paid family pension from the date after the death of deceased employee which took place on 15.11.2017.
iii) From the arrears of Pension and Family pension, the respondents shall be at liberty to recover and adjust the amount of Employer's contribution towards EPF with interest as applicable on EPF deposits and after such recovery and adjustment, the arrears of Pension and Family pension shall be paid to the Petitioner.
iv) Let the exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this Order.
v) The Petitioner is held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the remaining arrears of Pension after adjustment of EPF contribution with interest, from the date the amount fell due till actual payment.
(VIVEK JAIN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM 6 WP-21604-2021 veni Signature Not Verified Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH Signing time: 11/1/2025 3:57:53 PM