Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Singh Prajapati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14146
1 WP-25308-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 28th OF APRIL, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25308 of 2024
RAM SINGH PRAJAPATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nakul Khedkar - learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sohit Mishra - learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
1 . The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to count his period of service from 09/01/1974 to 08/09/1978 towards his qualifying service for purposes of pension and other retiral dues.
2 . The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed for a period of two months vide order dated 09/01/1974 on the post of Amin in work charged establishment in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Morena. A perusal of this order shows that the petitioner was given minimum of the pay scale of Rs.65-95/- together with admissible dearness allowance. The petitioner continued to work as such and ultimately he was regularized on the aforesaid post in regular establishment in the pay scale of Rs.139-200/- vide order dated 08/09/1978. The petitioner, thereafter, retired from service on attaining Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 04-May-26 1:55:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14146 2 WP-25308-2024 the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31/12/2010. After retirement of the petitioner, when the PPO was issued by the respondents, his services were counted from 18/09/1978 to 31/12/2010 for purposes of calculation of his retiral dues. The petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition on 27.08.2024 praying for the aforesaid relief.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was initially appointed in the work charged establishment and was an employee within the meaning of the Madhya Pradesh (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. He further submitted that his initial appointment with the work-charged establishment was followed by his regularization in the regular establishment vide order 08/07/1978. Thus, by virtue of Rule 6(3) of Pension Rules, 1979, the petitioner is entitled to count his previous services also. He placed reliance upon Gopi Pillai Vs. M.P.E.B. reported in 2002(2) MPLJ 278. He also relied upon coordinate bench judgment in the case of Smt. Renu Bansal Vs. State of M.P. & others i n W.P. No.25904/2021 . Learned counsel, thus, prayed for issuance of suitable directions to the respondents.
4 . Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State refuted the claim made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is his submission that the petitioner was initially appointed in the work-charged establishment, however, since he was absorbed in the regular establishment, his previous services could not be counted. He also submits that for application of Rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules, 1979, the absorption of the employee in regular establishment should be uninterrupted. As per his submission, there is Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 04-May-26 1:55:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14146 3 WP-25308-2024 nothing available on record to show that the petitioner continued to work in the work-charged establishment as initial order dated 09/01/1974 was only for a period of two months. Learned Government Advocate, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5 . Considered the arguments and perused the records. 6 . The facts which are not in dispute in this case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 09/01/1974 in the work-charged establishment on the post of Amin on the minimum of the pay scale. He was absorbed in the regular establishment vide order dated 09/09/1978 and retired from service on 31/12/2010. The objection of learned Government Advocate regarding uninterrupted service of the petitioner from 09/01/1974 to 08/07/1978 is not acceptable inasmuch as, thought his initial order was only for a period of two months, the Sub-Divisional Officer of the respondent department has issued a certificate on 20/04/1978 (Annexure-P/8) certifying that the petitioner has worked from January' 1974 till the date of issuance of the certificate, in the work-charged establishment as Amin. Thus, the petitioner is found to have continuously worked from 09/01/1974 to 08/07/1978.
7 . The term 'permanent employee' has been defined under Rule 2(c) of Pension Rules, 1979 as under:
"(c) "Permanent employee" means a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974:
Provided that in respect of a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has attained the age of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 04-May-26 1:55:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14146 4 WP-25308-2024 superannuation on or after the First April 1981, permanent employee means an employee who has completed 10 years of service on or after the 1st January 1974."
8 . As per the initial scheme of Rules of 1979, a person appointed in work charged or contingency establishment is a temporary employee and attains status of permanent employee only on completion of 15 years as temporary employee. The proviso was then added to the definition vide notification dated 13.09.1982 [26.12.1982] which entitles a temporary employee to attain status of permanent employee on completion of 10 years of service provided he is in service as on 01.04.1981. The provisions of Rule 6 was considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Motilal reported in 2013(1) MP LJ 691 .
9 . The petitioner since was in service as on 01.04.1981, he would have attained the status of permanent employee on completion of 10 years of service in work charged establishment. However, before completing the 10 years service, he was absorbed in regular establishment vide order dated 08.09.1978. Thus, he did not attain the status of permanent employee and continued to work as temporary employee in work charged establishment as on the date of his absorption in regular establishment.
10. The petitioner claims relief relying upon provisions of Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979, which provides for commencement of qualifying service. For ready reference, Rule 6 of the Pension Rules is reproduced as under:-
"6. Commencement of qualifying service.- (1) Subject to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 04-May-26 1:55:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14146 5 WP-25308-2024 the provisions of chapter III of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 or section IV of the Madhya Pradesh New Pension Rules, 1951 as the case may be, for calculating qualifying service of a permanent employee who retires as such, the service rendered with effect from the 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted.
(2) On absorption of a permanent employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted for pension as if such service was render in a regular post.
(3) A service made [after] 1 January, 1974 on the provisions of any regular pensionable post for any temporary employee, without any interference, provided that such service is not less than six years shall be counted for pension suppose that such a service has been done on a regular basis."
11. Notably, sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 has been added vide notification dated 27.02.2023, and the same has come into force with effect from 30.01.1996.
12. Rule 6 consists of three sub-rules and each sub-rule has its own field of operation as under:-
i. Sub-rule 1 applies to an employee who attains status of permanent employee in work charged or contingency establishment and retires as such. In such case, his service rendered in work charged or Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 04-May-26 1:55:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14146 6 WP-25308-2024 contingency establishment after 01.01.1959 shall be counted as qualifying service for purposes of pension;
ii. Sub-rule 2 applies to an employee who attains the status of permanent employee and gets absorbed against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered by him with effect from 01.01.1959, onwards is to be counted for pension. The term pensionable post used in this sub-rule refers to pensionable post as per M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. This sub- rule thus applies to a permanent employee and there is no restriction of minimum number of years of service;
iii. Lastly, sub-rule 3 applies to a temporary employee who gets absorbed against any regular pensionable post as such, without attaining the status of permanent employee and the service rendered by him with effect from 01.01.1974, onwards is to be counted for pension. However, there is a rider put in this provision that the service as temporary employee should not be less than six years.
13. As discussed hereinabove, since the petitioner did not attain the status of permanent employee, as he worked in work charged establishment only for a period of four years and about six months, sub-rule 1 & 2 are not applicable in his case. Since, he was a temporary employee but has not completed six years service in work charged establishment, sub-rule 3 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 04-May-26 1:55:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14146 7 WP-25308-2024 Rule 6 is also not attracted in his case. Thus, by simple reading of provisions of Rule 6 of Pension Rules, 1979, the petitioner is found not entitled to count period from 09/01/1974 to 007/07/1978, when he worked as a temporary employee, towards his qualifying service for pension.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon the Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gopi Pillai (supra). However, reading the said judgment, particularly para 7 thereof, it is evident that the Court had considered provisions of sub-rule 2 of Rule 6 which only deals with a permanent employee. Pertinently, since sub-rule 2 does not prescribe any minimum period of working as permanent employee, the period was directed to be counted as qualifying service for pension. Sub- rule 3 has been added subsequent to passing of said judgment. The petitioner, since was not a permanent employee, does not get any help from the judgment of Gopi Pillai (supra). The case of Smt. Renu Bansal (supra) is also of no help to petitioner inasmuch as the facts of the said case are found to be different. The employee therein had worked for more than six years in work- charged establishment.
15. Consequently, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition is not available to him. Therefore, this writ petition fails and is hereby, dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI) JUDGE rahul Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAHUL SINGH PARIHAR Signing time: 04-May-26 1:55:55 PM