Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sant Kumar Singh Sikarwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 25 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19089
1 WP-4809-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 25th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4809 of 2021
SANT KUMAR SINGH SIKARWAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Mr. Mudit Goswami - Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Naval Kishore Gupta - GA for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated
17.08.2017 (Annexure P/1), whereby his claim for grant of pension from the
initial date of engagement as daily wager, has been declined by the
respondents. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant
him pension by calculating his service w.e.f. 01.07.1980. He has also prayed
for grant of arrears as a result of revision of his pension.
2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner
was initially engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 01.03.1979. After the closer of
the Unit in which he was initially engaged, the petitioner was re-engaged in
the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sabalagarh. The petitioner approached
the Labour Court seeking relief of regularization. The Labour Court however
did not accept his claim and rejected the dispute raised by him. The petitioner
thereafter, challenged the award passed by the Labour Court in appeal before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19089
2 WP-4809-2021
the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court vide order dated 19.11.1977
(Annexure P/2) allowed the application and directed for permanent
classification of the petitioner on the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 02.02.1986.
The petitioner, thereafter, was appointed in the work charge establishment as
Assistant Mechanic vide order dated 13.12.1998. He thereafter retired from
service w.e.f. 31.12.2011.
3. After having retired from service, the petitioner raised a claim
before the respondent authorities to the effect that his services from
01.07.1980 be counted towards his pensionable service and his pension be
accordingly revised. When his claim was not accepted, the petitioner filed
W.P. No.8470/2013 before this Court. He claimed the benefit on the basis of
order passed by this Court on 30.03.2009 in the case of Moti Ram Vs. State
of M.P. & others in (W.P. No.1795/2007) (Annexure P/7). This Court vide
order dated 24.01.2017 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents
to consider petitioner's claim keeping into account the order passed by this
Court in the case of Moti Ram (supra). In compliance with the order passed
by this Court, the impugned order has been passed, whereby the petitioner's
claim has been declined. It has been held by the respondent - authorities that
the petitioner since was working as daily wager, the said period cannot be
counted towards his pensionary benefits.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
order passed by the respondents is illegal inasmuch as the petitioner is
entitled to count his service right from 01.07.1980 in view of the order
passed by this Court in the case of Moti Ram (supra). The learned also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19089
3 WP-4809-2021
placed reliance upon the definition of Qualifying Service as provided under
Rule 3(p) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 in support of his
submission. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex
Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others,
reported in (2019)10 SCC 516 and also in the case of Kanhaiyalal Kadere
Vs. State of M.P. & others (W.P.No.25644/2019).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported
the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to count
his service rendered as daily wage as the said service was not pensionable.
He further submits that Industrial Court has only directed for his permanent
classification which would not entitle him to get the benefit of pension. The
learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Mechanic in the work charge establishment on 13.12.1998 and
from this date, the benefit has already been extended to him. Thus, he prayed
for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
7. The facts which are not in dispute in this case are that the petitioner
was engaged on daily wages w.e.f. 01.03.1979. He was permanently
classified on the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 02.02.1986 by the order of
Industrial Court dated 19.11.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed in
the work charge establishment against the post of Assistant Mechanic on
31.12.1998. In the aforesaid facts, the issue raised by the petitioner about
counting his service towards his pension w.e.f. 01.07.1980 when he was
engaged on daily wages needs to be considered.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19089
4 WP-4809-2021
8. It is settled legal position that a permanently classified employee
under Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 ,
is only entitled to get minimum of the pay scale of the post on which he is so
classified and nothing else. This has been so held by Apex Court in the case
of Ram Naresh Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Sri Ashwini Ray & Ors. reported in
(2017) 3 SCC 436 . The Division Bench of this Court also held so in the case
o f State of M.P. & others Vs. Ishrat Mohammad i n W.A. No.226/2018 .
Thus, the claim made by petitioner for counting his daily wage services
towards his pensionable service is not acceptable.
9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the
order passed by this Court in the case of Moti Ram (supra) is of no help to
the petitioner. As seen from the said order, the petitioner therein was engaged
in the work charged establishment and the period so rendered by him was not
being counted towards pension. In those circumstances this Court passed the
aforesaid order. the petitioner has already been granted benefit of his work
charge service. He however seeks direction for counting of his daily wage
service towards his pensionable service. For the same reasons, the reliance
placed upon in the case of Prem Singh (supra) and Kanahaiyalal Kadere
(supra) is also of no help, inasmuch as the petitioners therein were also
appointed in the work charge establishment.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner then placed reliance on the
definition of 'qualifying service' as provided under Rule 3(1)(p) of Pension
Rules. Reading of the definition of the term qualifying service, makes it clear
that qualifying service would began from the date of joining the pensionable
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19089
5 WP-4809-2021
service. Admittedly, the engagement of petitioner as a daily wager could not
be said to be his pensionable service. His pensionable service commenced
when he was appointed in the work charged establishment on 31.12.1998.
11. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order passed
by the respondents on 17.08.2017 (Annexure P/1) cannot be said to be illegal
or otherwise unsustainable in law. The claim of the petitioner to count his
daily wage service towards his pensionable service is not, therefore,
acceptable.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is found to be without any
substance and is accordingly dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
bj/-
