Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Kulmi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822
1
WP-1226-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
WRIT PETITION No. 1226 of 2025
GHANSHYAM KULMI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Ekta Vyas - PL for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Mishra & Mr. Abhishek Mishra - Advocate for
respondents no.2, 3 & 6.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra - Advocate for respondents no.4, 5 & 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 15/12/2025
Delivered on : 24/12/2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure P/1) whereby his request for giving him benefit of old pension scheme by counting his service right from 15.07.1986 has been declined by the respondent no.4. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondent no.2 to 7 to give him the benefit of Swa Vitta Pension Yojana instead of New Pension Scheme.
[2]. As gathered from the records of this case, initially there was only one Agriculture University in the State of Madhya Pradesh namely- Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (in short "JNKVV"). The Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 2 WP-1226-2025 University was being operated by aid granted by Indian Council of Agriculture Research, Government of India, New Delhi, (in short "ICAR") and all Agriculture Colleges, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, Zonal Agriculture Research Centers were under the administrative control of JNKVV. The erstwhile JNKVV was thereafter bifurcated and a new Agriculture University was constituted namely, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindhia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (in short "RVSKVV") vide notification dated 19.08.2008. Thus, about five Agriculture Colleges, 22 Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Zonal Agriculture Research Centres were brought under administrative control of RVSKVV.
[3]. The petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Assistant vide order, dated 15.07.1986 (Annexure P/2) and was posted at Operational Research Project, Sidhi. As the name suggests, the petitioner's appointment was on a project. On account of closer of the aforesaid project, the surplus staff, including the petitioner, was transferred to another project namely, NARP Mandsaur vide order, dated 20.01.1993 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner thus joined at Mandsaur on 25.02.1993.
[4]. Later on, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Training Organizer on contract basis in Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khargone vide order, dated 11.08.2004 (Annexure P/5). Clause 3(b) of the appointment order provided that the tenure of engagement on contract basis is for a period not exceeding three years or till completion of project, whichever is earlier. Clause 3(g) further provided that the persons engaged on contract basis shall not be Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 3 WP-1226-2025 entitled to employers share for Contributory Provident Fund, pensionary benefits or gratuity etc. [5]. The petitioner was thereafter again considered by the Selection Committee for appointment on the post of Training Associates (Agronomy) and vide order, dated 22.01.2007 (Annexure P/6) appointed on the said post at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khargone. This appointment appears to be a fresh appointment on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining. Further, the petitioner was to be governed by New Pension Scheme introduced by Government of Madhya Pradesh and adopted by JNKVV w.e.f. 01.01.2005. Clause 3(i) & 3(viii) being relevant are reproduced as under:
"(i) The appointment shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining and the period of probation shall be determined under the provisions laid down in the M.P. Fundamental Rules.
xxx xxx xxx
(viii) The candidate appointed to the post shall be governed by the new pension scheme introduced by the State Government of M.P. and adopted by the Vishwa Vidyalaya effective form 01.01.2005."
[6]. On constitution of RVSKVV, the petitioner was transferred to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Rajgarh on 16.06.2009 and was further to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Aron District Guna on 07.06.2011 as Training Associates (Agronomy). In the year 2016, the RVSKVV undertook selection process for appointment on the post of Programme Coordinator (Senior Scientist & Head). The petitioner applied for the same. On being selected, he was appointed as Programme Coordinator (Senior Scientist & Head) and was posted at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 4 WP-1226-2025 Mandsaur vide order, dated 10.10.2016, (Annexure P/12). This appointment order also contained the similar Clauses viz. Clause 3(i) & 3(viii) as under:
"(i) The appointment shall be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining and the period of probation shall be determined under the provisions laid down in the M.P. Fundamental Rules.
xxx xxx xxx
(viii) The candidate appointed to the post shall be governed by the "Naveen Paribhashit Pension Yojana 2005" introduced by the State Government of M.P. and adopted by the Vishwa Vidyalaya effective form 01.01.2005."
[7]. The petitioner was thereafter transferred and posted at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khargone on the post of Senior Scientist & Head vide order dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure P/14).
[8]. The petitioner claims that he, having been appointed on 15.07.1986, is required to be given benefit of Old Pension Scheme counting his services right from 15.07.1986. He made representation claiming the said benefit on 06.10.2023 & 19.12.2023 (Annexure P/19 & P/20). However, when no response was received, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No.1543 of 2024. The petition was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure P/23) directing the respondents to decide the representation. In compliance, the impugned order, dated 22.11.2024, (Annexure P/1) has been passed by respondent no.4 whereby the petitioner's claim has been rejected. That is how the petitioner is before this Court challenging the order, dated 22.11.2024.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 5 WP-1226-2025 [9]. Challenging the impugned order passed by respondent no.4, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was appointed on 15.07.1986 and has continuously discharged his duty initially with JNKVV and thereafter with RVSKVV. He thus submitted that since his appointment is prior to 01.01.2005, he is entitled to get the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner had submitted option for being covered under the pension and gratuity scheme of JNKVV on 19.01.1995 (Annexure P/16). He further submitted that the respondent RVSKVV has also passed an order on 26.06.2012 granting permission to the effect that the contract service period rendered by petitioner for the period from 02.09.2004 to 26.01.2007 shall be counted for self finance pensionary benefits as per Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. On this count also, he submitted that the petitioner's services have been counted w.e.f. 02.09.2004 and, therefore, he is covered under the Old Pension Scheme. The learned counsel also referred to the documents collectively filed as Annexure P/25 to say that in cases of similarly situated employees, similar condition no.(i), (iii), (iv), (v) & (viii) of Clause 3 have been deleted and, therefore, the petitioner has been discriminated from the similarly situated persons by giving him benefit of New Pension Scheme. He thus prayed for indulgence by this Court in the matter.
[10]. The learned counsel for the respondent no.4, 5 & 7 refuted the claim made by petitioner's counsel. He argued that the initial appointment of the petitioner was in a project which was not countable towards his pensionable service. He also pointed-out that the conditions Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 6 WP-1226-2025 enumerated in the order, dated 11.08.2004 shows that it was purely a contractual appointment and the service was also not countable for pensionary and other benefits. The learned counsel strongly referred to the order of appointment dated 22.01.2007 wherein under Clause 3(viii), it was specifically provided that the petitioner shall be governed by the New Pension Scheme. It is his submission that pursuant to this appointment, the petitioner himself submitted option for benefit of New Pension Scheme which have been placed on record as (Annexure R/1). He further submitted that on constitution of RVSKVV, the funds deducted towards NPS by JNKVV was transferred to RVSKVV vide memo, dated 16.06.2009 (Annexure R/2). The Anshadan Pension Yojana Balance-sheet brought on record as (Annexure R/2) shows that the contribution under the NPS was deducted and later on the amount was transferred to RVSKVV.
[11]. The learned counsel also submitted that pursuant to his appointment on 22.01.2007, the Paribhashit Anshdan Pension Account was opened by JNKVV and the information of the same was given to Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khargone vide memo dated 14.08.2007. It is his submission that, to the knowledge of petitioner, his contribution under the NPS was being deposited continuously in the said account and he never raised any objection. The learned counsel thus submitted that the petitioner was aware about the fact that he is covered under NPS right from 22.01.2007 and he has willingly contributed towards the same. As per his submission, the petitioner now cannot agitate the claim of being covered under Old Pension Scheme. Regarding order, dated 26.06.2012, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 7 WP-1226-2025 the learned counsel submitted that this was an option available to the petitioner in view of Rule 16 of Pension Rules, however he failed to act as per the said rule and, therefore, no benefit can be given to him now. The learned counsel thus justified rejection of petitioner's representation by respondent no.4 and prayed for dismissal of writ petition.
[12]. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, 3 & 6 supported the argument of counsel appearing for RVSKVV and also prayed for dismissal of petition.
[13]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[14]. At the outset, it be noted that the JNKVV passed an order dated 01.02.2007 (Annexure P/20) thereby adopting the New Pension Scheme of the Government of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2005. As per this order, the persons appointed after 01.01.2005 are to be covered under New Pension Scheme. There is no material available on record to show that even after implementation of New Pension Scheme, the persons appointed after 01.01.2005 had an option to be a member of Old Pension Scheme. It is thus to be seen as to whether the service rendered by petitioner prior to 01.01.2005 can be counted so as to make him a member of Old Pension Scheme ?
[15]. The initial inception of the petitioner in service was pursuant to order dated 15.07.1986 by which he was appointed as Technical Assistant. A perusal of this order reveals that the appointment was temporary and till further orders in the Operational Research Project, Sidhi. Thus, this appointment was for a particular project. On closer of Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 8 WP-1226-2025 this project, the petitioner, being the surplus staff, was engaged in another project namely, NARP Mandsaur. Thus, the engagement of the petitioner since 15.07.1986 was for a particular project and there is no material produced on record to show that being a project employee, he was entitled to pensionary benefits.
[16]. The respondent RVSKVV has come up with a specific unrebutted case that initially JNKVV was run with the aid given by Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR). Thus, the project at Sidhi or for that matter at Mandsaur were also aided by ICAR. Certain persons working in the project sponsored by ICAR in JNKVV approached this Court seeking regularization of their service. The High Court allowed the petition against which JNKVV approached Apex Court in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Vs. Bal Kishan Soni reported in (1997)5 SCC 86. Dealing with the situation, the Apex Court held as under:
"2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2935 of 1986 on 9-2-1995 and the order passed in review petition (MCC No. 461 of 1995) dated 12-7-1996. On a Scheme sponsored by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the appellant Institute had taken up the Project. As many as 625 posts were created in different scales. The respondents while working as Binders, Machine Operators and Class IV employees respectively in the regular pay scales of Rs 750-945, filed a writ petition in the High Court for regularisation of their service. By the impugned order, the High Court allowed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant Institute has filed this appeal by special leave.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 9 WP-1226-2025
3. It is not in dispute that the Scheme is sponsored by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and, therefore, permanent posts cannot be created. The posts are coterminous with the Scheme. On abolition of the Scheme, the posts also necessarily stand abolished. We are informed that the Scheme may continue to be in force; but it depends upon the Scheme being sponsored and the posts made available by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Therefore, the direction to regularise the services is violative of their right to posts. The order of the High Court to that extent is modified. On whatever posts the respondents are working and discharging their duty, the scale of pay of the said post is directed to be paid."
[17]. Thus, in view of the aforesaid legal position and in absence of any material to show otherwise, it has to be held that the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 15.07.1986 could not be counted towards his pensionary benefits.
[18]. The petitioner was then appointed as Training Organizer vide order, dated 11.08.2004 on contract basis. He was posted at Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Khargone. Clause 3(b) & 3(g) of this appointed order provided as under:
"(b) The tenure of engagement on contract basis shall be for a period of not exceeding three years or till the completion of the project on which engagement has been made, whichever is earlier. However, a person shall be eligible for engagement afresh on contract basis, provided he/she is found suitable by the Statutory Selection Committee afresh. Such a person on fresh engagement shall be entitled to a salary increase of 5% emoluments on the pay for each year of service rendered in the same cadre in JNKVV.
xxx xxx xxx Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 10 WP-1226-2025
(g) The person engaged on contract basis shall not be entitled to employers share for Contributory Provident Fund benefits, pensionary benefits or gratuity, etc." [19]. Thus, it is evident that the appointment of petitioner on the post of Training Organizer was purely a the contract engagement for a maximum period not exceeding three years or till the completion of the project, whichever is earlier. It is further evident that the petitioner, engaged on contract basis, was not entitled to employers share for Contributory Provident Fund benefit, pensionary benefits or gratuity etc. Thus, service rendered by him on the post of Training Organizer was also not countable towards the pensionary benefits.
[20]. The petitioner then came to be appointed as Training Associate (Agronomy) vide order, dated 22.01.2007. As per the clauses quoted above, this appointment was on probation for a period of two years and the petitioner was to be governed by New Pension Scheme. The petitioner accepted these terms and conditions of appointment without demur and continued as such till 2023 when for first time, he raised his claim for benefit under the Old Pension Scheme. Thus, right from 22.01.2007, he was aware that he is governed by New Pension Scheme and not by the Old Pension Scheme.
[21]. After his appointment as Technical Associate (Agronomy), the petitioner himself submitted his option under the New Pension Scheme wherein his date of appointment is stated to be 27.01.2007 (Annexure R/1). Meaning thereby, he willingly accepted the benefit under the New Pension Scheme. Further, on having been inducted in New Pension Scheme, his requisite account was opened and the contribution under the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 11 WP-1226-2025 NPS was being deposited in the said account right from 2007. On being allocated to RVSKVV, this account alongwith funds, is transferred to RVSKVV University.
[22]. It is thus evident from aforesaid discussion, that the petitioner's appointment is after 01.01.2005 which can be taken into account for purposes of pensionary benefits under New Pension Scheme. The petitioner has also willingly accepted the same and has continued as such till date.
[23]. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that submission of option and filling of forms under New Pension Scheme was under
compulsion and pressure and on this count the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. In this regard, it is to be noted that the petitioner is a well educated person and understands the intricacies of the terms and conditions of the appointment. He accepted the terms and conditions of his appointment in the year 2007 and continued to follow the same for long 16 years without any demur. Thus, it cannot be accepted that he accepted membership of New Pension Scheme under any compulsion or any pressure. Further, in absence of any other option, the submission so made by petitioner's counsel is not acceptable.
[24]. The petitioner has placed heavy reliance on the order, dated 26.06.2012, (filed at page 55 of petition) passed by RVSKVV whereby approval to count his contract service towards qualifying service was granted. This was subject to petitioner's depositing his contribution with interest on pro-rata basis in the account of University. This order was Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 12 WP-1226-2025 passed by RVSKVV in view of order, dated 14.03.2012 (filed at page 56 of petition) passed by JNKVV. It is the specific case of respondents that the petitioner never deposited the requisite amount as directed in the aforesaid order and thus never availed the benefit of this order.
[25]. It be seen that these orders were passed in view of Rule 16 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 which provides as under:
16. Counting of service on contract.-(1) A person who is initially engaged by the Government on a contract for a specified period and is subsequently appointed to the same or another post in regular capacity in a pensionable establishment without interruption of duty may opt either:-
(a) to retain the Government contribution in the contributory provident fund with interest including any other compensation for that service or;
(b) to agree to refund to the Government the monetary benefits referred to in clause (a) or to forego the same if they have not been paid to him and count in lieu thereof the service for which the aforesaid monetary benefits may have been payable.
(2) The option under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated to the Head of Office under intimation to the Audit Officer within a period of three months from the date of issue of the order of transfer to pensionable service, or if the Government servant is on leave on that day, within three months of his return from leave whichever is later.
(3) If no communication is received by the Head of Office within the period referred to in sub-rule (2) the Government servant shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the monetary benefits payable or paid to him on account of service rendered on contract.Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 13 WP-1226-2025 [26]. Thus, by virtue of sub-rule (2) & (3) of Rule 16, the petitioner was required to submit his option within the time prescribed and on his failure to do so, would be deemed to have opted for retention of monetary benefits payable or paid to him on account of service rendered on contract. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to act as directed vide order, dated 26.06.2012.
[27]. Since, the petitioner was the appointee after 01.01.2005, the applicability of Rule 16 of Pension Rules, is still an issue to be debated upon. However, even presuming that the said rule is applicable, since the petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of order, dated 26.06.2012, no benefit of the said order can be given to him now.
[28]. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied upon the order collectively filed as Annexure P/25 to say that the similarly situated employees have been given benefit under the Old Pension Scheme and the similar Clause 3(viii), alongwith certain other conditions, has been deleted from their appointment order of the year 2016. The petitioner thus claims parity with these persons. In this regard, it is to be seen that the petitioner was appointed as Training Associates (Agronomy) vide order, dated 22.01.2007. The order specifically states that he would be governed by New Pension Scheme. Therefore, when he was later on appointed as Programme Coordinator (Senior Scientist & Head) vide order, dated 10.10.2016, same conditions were incorporated in this order also. Therefore, initial appointment of petitioner is 22.01.2007 i.e. after 01.01.2005 and therefore, he is governed under New Pension Scheme though w.e.f. 22.01.2007.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33822 14 WP-1226-2025 However, from the records it is not clear as to whether the persons in respect of whom the orders are filed as Annexure P/25, were appointed before or after 01.01.2005. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively held that the petitioner is at par with these persons.
[29]. In view of the discussion made above, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for indulgence by this Court in any of the grounds raised by him. The petition therefore, fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE Vpn/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIPIN KUMAR AGRAHARI Signing time: 12/24/2025 5:29:41 PM