[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkumar Sondhiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
1 WP-22606-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 5th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 22606 of 2021
RAMKUMAR SONDHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 22603 of 2021
MANGAL PRASAD SONDHIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 23634 of 2021
SAFIQUE MOHAMMAD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravinandan Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KRISHNA
SEN
Signing time: 12-12-2025
19:23:45
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
2 WP-22606-2021
WRIT PETITION No. 14862 of 2025
NATTHULAL GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Regard being had to similitude of the facts of all the cases, they
are heard analogously and being decided by a common order. For the
sake of convenience, WP No.22606/2021 is taken as lead case and facts
are taken therefrom.
2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed seeking following reliefs :
"(i) That, it is therefore, prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to quash the impugned Clause 10 of order dated 18.04.2013 (Annexure P/1) and
further may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the
respondents/competent authority to grant the pension as per Rule 6(3) of the M.P.
Work Charged and contingency paid employees Pension Rules 1979 and
prepared the pension case and also pay the gratuity amount accordingly with 12%
interest, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Any other relief deems fit may also be granted including cost of
litigation."
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has been employed under the Work Charged Contingency
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
3 WP-22606-2021
Establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1981, as it is reflected from the order dated
18.04.2013 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner's services have been
regularized under the Rules of Work-Charged and Contingency Paid
Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. It is
submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the condition No.10 of the
appointment by which it has been mentioned that the petitioner would
not be entitled for pension under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services
(Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules of 1972') and the petitioner
would be treated as member of the Contributory Pension Scheme of
2005.
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that
as per Rule 6(3) of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules
of 1979'), the petitioner was entitled for pension even without
regularization because the petitioner has earned the status of permanent
employee as per Rule 2(c) of the said Rules which provides that the
employee of Work Charged Contingency Establishment on completion
of 10 years of service attains the status of a permanent employee
automatically and becomes entitled for pension. Thus, it is prayed that
such condition is de hors the Rules of 1979 and unconstitutional,
deserves to be quashed by granting relief to the petitioner of pension
under the Rules of 1979.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
4 WP-22606-2021
the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2013, his services would
be counted from the date of regularization. Petitioner in
W.P.No.22606/2021 stood retired w.e.f. 30.04.2020,
in W.P.No.22603/2021 w.e.f. 31.07.2020, in W.P.No.23634/2021 w.e.f.
29.10.2020 and in W.P.No.14862/2025 w.e.f. 31.07.2022 and as the
petitioners have not completed the qualifying service of 10 years, the
petitioners are not entitled for pension. It is further submitted that in the
regularization letter dated 21.04.2020 (Annexure P/2), the condition
No.10 was very well known to the petitioner but the petitioner never
challenged the same, thus, the petitioner after retirement cannot
challenge such regularization which is barred by the principle of
estopple and also by time. It is submitted that as the petitioner was
appointed/regularized after year 2005, when the Contributory Pension
Scheme was announced and made applicable in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, the petitioner has been paid the entire amount after retirement
and now nothing is left to be paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted
that in similar facts of the case, this Court in the case of Manohar Annaji
Jain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P.No.1140/2023 decided on
24th March, 2023) (Annexure R/2), has declined relief of pension on the
basis of Old Pension Scheme. It is also submitted that Rule 6(3) of the
Rules of 1979 is not applicable in the present case in hand as it has come
in force with effect from 27.02.2023 and prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
5 WP-22606-2021
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. It is evident from the order Annexure P/1 that the petitioner was
employed as daily wager with effect from 01.01.1981. The heading of
the column of the table reads as - दै िनक वेतन भोगी कमचार का नाम, वतमान
पद थापना, वभाग म उप थित दनांक - that itself shows that the petitioner
was the member of the Work Charged Contingency Establishment with
effect from 01.01.1981.
8. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1979, reads as under :
"2(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 workcharged
employee who has attained the age of 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."
9. Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1979 confers permanent status on the
employee of the contingency paid employee or work charged employee
who has completed 15 years of service or more, on or after 01.01.1974
with the proviso that the employee who has attained the age of
superannuation on or after 1981, permanent employee means who has
completed 10 years of service on or after 01.01.1974.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner has been superannuated in the year
2020 i.e. after 01.04.1981, thus applying the proviso to Rule 2(c), the
petitioner has attained the status of permanent employee on completion
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
6 WP-22606-2021
of 10 years of service from 1981 i.e. in 1991.
11. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1979 reads as under:
"Rule 6 - Commencement of qualifying service - (1) Subject to the
provisions of chapter III of the 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."
12. According to Rule 6(2) on absorption of a permanent
employee against a regular pensionable post, the services rendered with
effect from 01.01.1959 onwards, shall be counted for pension as if the
service was rendered in a regular post that itself shows that the petitioner
who has been employed in 1981, though as a daily wager but paid
monthly salary from the said establishment has qualified the service of
10 years for the purpose of pension.
13. If the order of regularization of 2013 (Annexure P/1) is kept
aside, then also the petitioner was entitled for the pension as the
petitioner had completed 10 years of service in the year 1991, which is
prior to application of the scheme of 2005 in the State of Madhya
Pradesh. Thus, when the petitioner has accrued some right by operation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
7 WP-22606-2021
of law that cannot be snatched away by administrative action of
regularizing the petitioner on a later date and holding that as the
petitioner was regularized on a later date, with condition of new pension
scheme the petitioner is not entitled for pension in accordance with the
Rules of 1979.
14. This Court in catena of cases has held that if the employee has
completed 10 years of service, he has attained the status of permanent
employee and also qualified for the purpose of pension.
15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhajanlal
Malviya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. (W.A.No.561/2017 decided
on 11.04.2018), has held :
"Thus, in view of the proviso to Rule 2(c) of "Rule 1979" it is held that the
petitioner, on completion of 10 years of service counting from the date of
appointment on Contingency i.e. from 29.10.1999, has attained the status of
permanent employee automatically under Clause 2(c) of Rules, 1979 and
becomes entitled to the pension."
16. Further, co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Bakhatlal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors. (W.P.No.6355/2017
decided on 13.07.2017), has held :
"4. In the opinion of this Court, the point involved in this case is no more
res integra. In WP No.1205/2006 (Ram Gopal Dubey vs. State of M.P. and
others), this court has opined as under:
"2. ... The second grievance of the petitioner is that he has not
been paid pension and gratuity on the ground that he has not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
8 WP-22606-2021
completed 10 years of service in work charge establishment.
3.Shri Tamrakar submits that relevant rules namely Madhya
Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency paid Employees) Pension
Rules, 1979 stood amended w.e.f 30/01/1996. As per this
amendment, the petitioner is entitled to get pension on completion of
6 years of services, which he had admittedly rendered. The reliance is
placed on following judgments:-
(1) 2003(4)MPLJ376 (Shrikrishn Shrivastava Vs. State of
M.P); (2) 2006 (4) MPLJ 112 (Shamim Begum Vs. State of M.P) 2.
(3) 2007 (2) MPHT 51 (Shyama Bai Vs. State of M.P) 3. (4) 2012 (3)
MPLJ 214 (Harinarayan Vs. State of M.P) 4. (5) 2011 (2) MPHT 113
(Mohd. Sadik Vs. State of M.P) 5. (6) 2010 (4) MPLJ 332 (Raheesa
Begum Vs. State of M.P) 6. (7) 2011 (3) MPLJ 2010 (Mamta Shukla
Vs. State of M.P) 7. (8)2002 (2) MPLJ 278 (Gopa Pillai Vs. MPEB)
8. (9) 2014 LIC 3503 (Shankarlal Vs. State of M.P) 9. (10)2011 LIC
265 (Chandrashekhar Vs. State of M.P) 10. (11)W.A No. 179/2010
(State of M.P Vs. Ramchandra) decided on 05/08/2013.
4. Shri Kekre, learned G.A opposed the relief on the basis of
reply filed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
6. The notification by which the aforesaid amendment was
brought into force reads as under:-
GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
NOTIFICATION
Bhopal, Dated 30/01/1996
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
9 WP-22606-2021
B-25/17/95/PWC/IV. In exercise of the powers conferred by
the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of
Madhya Pradesh hereby makes the following further amendment in
the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency paid
Employees)Pension Rule 1979, namely:-
AMENDMENT
In the said rules, after sub-rule (2) of rule 6, and following sub
rule shall be added, namely:- "(3) On absorption of temporary
employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post,
the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1974 onwards, if
such service is of not less than six years shall be counted for pension
as if such service was rendered in a regular post."
By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh,
(S.G. Limaye)
Deputy Secretary to Govt. of M.P.
Finance Department
(Emphasis Supplied).
7. This Court has considered the effect of said amendment in the
judgments cited by Shri S.R. Tamrakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. As per
amended provision, the petitioner is entitled to get pension and retiral dues. Thus
action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner eligible for grant of
pension and retiral dues cannot be accepted and approved. The petitioner is
entitled to get pension and retiral dues because he has rendered more than 6 years
of services from 01/01/1996.
..... Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as eligible for grant of
pension and retiral dues. They shall calculate the pension and retiral dues from
the due date and make payment from the due date to the petitioner within 90 days
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
10 WP-22606-2021
from the date of production of copy of this order, failing which it will carry 12%
interest till the date of realization."
5. In the light of the order passed by this Court and on account of the
notification dated 30.1.1996 mentioned hereinabove, petitioner has completed the
qualifying service and is entitled to get pension and retiral dues."
17. The case law relied by the respondent/State as Annexure R/2
have distinguishable facts as the petitioner in that case was given fresh
appointment after 2005. Thus, the said case is not applicable in the
present case in hand, as the petitioner was not given fresh appointment
in the year 2013 but his services were regularized after continuation of
long period of service in the Work Charged Contingency Establishment.
As, it has already been held by this Court that on completion of 10 years
of service the employee earns the status of permanent employee and he
becomes entitled for the pensionary benefits after absorption in the
establishment. The contention of the respondent/State is not tenable in
the eye of law.
18. The State Government vide notification dated 27.02.2023 has
made amendment in the Rules of 1979 by appending Rule 6 (3) which
has been made applicable retrospectively with effect from 30.01.1996,
which also provides that if the temporary employee has continued in
service for a long time without interruption, shall be counted for the
purpose of pension as if such employee has been appointed on the
regular basis.
19. Respondent could not make out any case that petitioner's
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
11 WP-22606-2021
initial appointment was de hors the Rules as the respondents in the order
dated 18.04.2023 (Annexure P/1) themselves have written that the
petitioner was employed as daily wager in the establishment with effect
from 01.01.1981, thus, respondent cannot take benefit of the judgment
passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Mamta Shukla
vs State of M.P. & Others (2011) 3 MPLJ 210.
20. In view of the aforesaid analysis of factual matrix of the case,
the petition is allowed. The condition No.10 as imposed in the order
dated 18.04.2013 (Annexure P/1), is hereby quashed.
21. Respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as permanent
employee under Work Charged Establishment and grant all the
pensionary benefits as per the Rules of 1979. The respondents are also
directed to pay the arrears of the pension from the date of his retirement,
adjusting the amount the petitioner has received from the respondents
after his retirement as pensionary benefits.
22. The entire exercise be completed within 06 months from the
date of production of certified copy of this order. In case such exercise,
including release of payment, is not completed within 06 months, the
same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.
23. With the aforesaid, the petitions are allowed and disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63667
12 WP-22606-2021
anand
