Madhya Pradesh High Court
Harishankar Upadhyay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36750
1 WP-18890-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 6 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18890 of 2022
HARISHANKAR UPADHYAY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Roy - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari- Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that the
impugned order (Annexure P-1) is common order rejecting the case of as
many as 7 employees including one Pritam Kumar Dubey. The said Pritam
Kumar Dubey had filed WP No.21464 of 2022 before this Court which has
been allowed by this Court and the case of the petitioner also stands on
similar footing. In WP No. 21464 of 2022 this Court has passed the
following order:-
"This petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.05.2022
passed by the respondent No.3-Executive Engineer, Public Works
Department, Mandla Division District Mandla (M.P.) whereby the
representation submitted by petitioner for grant of krammonati
benefits in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Prem Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and
others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 was turned down only on
the ground that the circular does not provide for grant of benefits
to an employee working under the work-charged establishment.
2.However, the fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36750
2 WP-18890-2022
case of Prem Singh (supra) has held as under : -
"31. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was
unfair on the part of the State Government and its
officials to take work from the employees on the work-
charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an
appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the
work-charged basis for long amounts to adopting the
exploitative device. Later on, though their services have
been regularised. However, the period spent by them in
the work-charged establishment has not been counted
towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only
been deprived of their due emoluments during the
period they served on less salary in work- charged
establishment but have also been deprived of counting
of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services
had been rendered by them. The State has been
benefitted by the services rendered by them in the
heydays of their life on less salary in work-charged
establishment.
32. In view of the Note appended to Rule 3(8) of the
1961 Rules, there is a provision to count service spent
on work-charged, contingencies or non-pensionable
service, in case, a person has rendered such service in a
given between period of two temporary appointments in
the pensionable establishment or has rendered such
service in the interregnum two periods of temporary
and permanent employment. The work-charged service
can be counted as qualifying service for pension in the
aforesaid exigencies.
33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider
that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-
between two spells of temporary or temporary and
permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once
regularisation had been made on vacant posts, though
the employee had not served prior to that on temporary
basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it
was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly
salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged
establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36750
3 WP-18890-2022
crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational
because of the rider contained in the Note to Rule 3(8)
of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service
particularly, when it can be counted, in case such
service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-
between temporary and permanent services. There is no
rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-
charged period in case it has been rendered before
regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible
classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would
be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive
such employees benefit of the qualifying service.
Service of work-charged period remains the same for all
the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it
has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The
classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and
when respondents are themselves counting period spent
in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to
count the service on the basis of flimsy classification.
The rider put on that work-charged service should have
preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and
irrational and creates an impermissible classification.
34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to
make aforesaid classification to make Rule 3(8) valid
and non-discriminatory, we have to read down the
provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered
even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-
charged employees, contingency paid fund employees
or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted
towards the qualifying service even if such service is
not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a
pensionable establishment.
35. In view of the Note appended to Rule 3(8), which
we have read down, the provision contained in
Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations has to
be struck down as also the instructions contained in
Para 669 of the Financial Handbook.
36. There are some of the employees who have not
been regularised in spite of having rendered the services
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36750
4 WP-18890-2022
for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been
superannuated. As they have worked in the work-
charged establishment, not against any particular
project, their services ought to have been regularised
under the Government instructions and even as per the
decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi
(3) [State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1
: 2006 SCC (L&S) 753]. This Court in the said decision
has laid down that in case services have been rendered
for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's
order, as one-time measure, the services be regularised
of such employees. In the facts of the case, those
employees who have worked for ten years or more
should have been regularised. It would not be proper to
regulate them for consideration of regularisation as
others have been regularised, we direct that their
services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made
clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues
of difference in wages had they been continued in
service regularly before attaining the age of
superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the
pension as if they have retired from the regular
establishment and the services rendered by them right
from the day they entered the work-charged
establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for
purpose of pension."
3.Once the employee is working under the work-charged
establishment, he is entitled for all such benefits. The aforesaid
aspect was considered by this Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal
Kadere vs State of M.P. and others : WP No. 25644 of 2019
decided on 05.12.2024 wherein it is observed thus :
7. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that
petitioner's initial appointment was under the work
charged establishment as is reflected from the
appointment order of petitioner which is filed along
with return by the respondents/Authorities. The
appointment order dated 12/07/1976 clearly speaks that
the petitioner's appointment was under the work
charged establishment and he was being paid from the
contingency fund.
8. Under these circumstances and in view of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36750
5 WP-18890-2022
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Prem Singh (supra), decision taken by the
Authorities is unsustainable. It is hereby quashed.
9. Respondents are directed to count the services
rendered by petitioner from 12/07/1976 to 19/06/1985
for qualifying service for the purposes of pensionary
benefits.
10. The entire exercise be completed within a period of
90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. Respondents are further directed to re-fix the
pension of the petitioner, calculate the arrears and pay
the same to the petitioner within aforesaid period.
11. Needless to say that the arrears will carry interest
@ 6% per annum because the petitioner was not at fault
for not extending the complete pensionary benefits and
the fault is on the part of the respondents/Authorities.
12. With aforesaid observations, petition succeeds and
is hereby allowed.
4.Counsel appearing for the State initially has made an attempt to
justify passing of the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 but when
confronted with the fact that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) has put to rest
the entire controversy, he fairly submits that the controversy is put
to rest in Prem Singh's case (supra). But, still he points out that the
circular issued by the State Government is not put to challenge in
the present petition.
5.Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
6.The reason which has been assigned while rejecting the claim of
the petitioner vide impugned order is based upon the circular
issued by the authorities.
7.Surprising to see that once the controversy is put to rest by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra), then
how the authorities are not complying with the directions issued
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and still are deciding the cases of
their employees based upon the circulars issued by them.
8.It is an admitted position that the employee is entitled for
counting his past services rendered by him under the work-charged
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:36750
6 WP-18890-2022
establishment for the purpose of qualifying service for pension.
The employee is also entitled for grant of krammonati benefits as
has been considered and decided by this Court in a catena of
judgments.
9.Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated
04.05.2022 (Annexure P/1) being unsustainable is hereby quashed.
The authorities are directed to extent the krammonati benefits to
the petitioner within a period of 90 days from today after
calculating arrears for the same. The petitioner will also be entitled
for an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of entitlement till
the date of realization of the said amount."
2. As the petitioner is similarly situated, the present petition is also
disposed off in similar terms and the aforesaid order will apply to the
petitioner also mutatis mutandis with full force. The impugned order
(Annexure P-1) stands set aside.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
