[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dan Bahadur Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 December, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68866
1 WP-48663-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 17th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 48663 of 2025
DAN BAHADUR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjeev Tuli - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner seeks
reckoning of his pre-regularization services to be calculated as pensionable
services for the purpose of calculation of Pension.
2. It is his case that the Petitioner has been regularized in the year 2011
but they were working since 08.08.1989.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that recently, the issue
has been dealt with and decided by this Court in Writ Petition No.751/2020
and the respondents should deal with the case of the Petitioners also in terms
of paragraph 60 of the judgment in the aforesaid case which is as under:-
"
60. Therefore, in view of Paragraph-13 of the judgment
in case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra), and looking to the
position that the petitioners are temporary contingency
paid employees as they are were being paid on a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68866
2 WP-48663-2025
monthly basis prior to regularization, therefore, the
services, if rendered as monthly paid Daily rated
employee, have to be treated as permanent contingency
paid employee, if at least 15 years of service had been
completed prior to regularization. Therefore, the
petitions are partly allowed in the following terms:-
(i) The services rendered by the petitioners in excess of
15 years as monthly paid employees though declared as
daily rated employees by the State shall be reckoned as
services for the purpose of calculation of length of
service for pension. In other words, the services from
date next immediately after completion of 15 years as
monthly paid daily rated employee shall be counted
towards pensionable service after regularization.
(ii) It is held that the services rendered as monthly paid
employee, though named or described as daily rated
employee by the State, shall be reckoned to be services
rendered as temporary contingency paid employees that
would convert into "permanent contingency paid
employee" in terms of proviso to Rule 2 (c)
immediately upon completion of 15 years of monthly
paid service, only for purpose of pensionable service.
(iii) This period in excess of 15 years shall enure good
only for purpose of calculation of length of service for
pension under Pension Rules of 1979. In those cases
where there was no compliance of Rule 7 of the
Recruitment Rules, the services shall not be reckoned to
be permanent contingency paid services for other
purposes like salary, etc.
(iv) The petitioners are set at liberty to challenge the
vires of the amendment dated 27.02.2023 and in the
case that the amendment is declared ultra-vires by this
Court in any subsequent petition, then the petitioners
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:68866
3 WP-48663-2025
would be at liberty to seek calculation of services
rendered as temporary contingency paid employees in
excess of 6 years for the purpose of pension.
(v) The order be complied within 60 days."
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the respondents
would examine the service record of the Petitioner and thereafter would deal
with the applicability of the said case to the Petitioner and take appropriate
decision.
5. Considering the rival submissions, the petition is disposed off with
the following directions:-
i) The Petitioner shall submit a detailed representation before the
Respondent No.3 containing relevant facts of his service particulars
alongwith judgment in case of Writ Petition No.751/2020 within a period of
15 days from today.
ii) In turn, the Respondent No.3 shall deal with the matter and examine
the parity of the Petitioner in terms of judgment in Writ Petition
No.751/2020 and accordingly take appropriate decision in the matter.
iii) Let the exercise be completed within 60 days from submission of
fresh representation by the Petitioners.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
R
