Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Kumar Dwivedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5965
1 WP-4487-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 4487 of 2025
NARENDRA KUMAR DWIVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brijesh Kumar Choubey - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Sharma- Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his claim is for
counting of service rendered as daily rated employee for the purpose of
pension and submits that after rendering services for some period as daily
rated employee, he was subsequently regularized.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that cases of similarly situated
persons have been considered by this court in W.P. No. 16878/2010
(Annexure P/8)and W.P. No. 12237/2019 (Annexure P/12), it is contended
that the case of the petition is similar footings and he deserves similar
treatment.
3. In W.P. No. 12237/2019, this Court has passed the following
order:-
With the consent of parties,
finally heard.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5965
2 WP-4487-2025
2. The 'petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the: Constitution of India
prayed for a writ of mandamus / direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as
eligible for grant of pension under . the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 ( Pension Rules).
3. Shri Manoj Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner
was initially appointed on daily rated basis on 31.08.1979 (Annexure P-1). The
petitioner by order dated 20.05.1998 was directed to drive a jeep. Thereafter by
office order dated 25.05.1998 certain work charge contingency paid employees
including the petitioner were directed to work as drivers.
4, The case of the petitioner is that he previously filed WP No. 2868/2014 for
extending the benefit of regular pay scale to the employees who are working in the
work charge and contingency paid | establishment against the sanctioned and vacant
post. This petition was decided on 03.04.2014 and petitioner was granted similar
benefit in view of Indore Bench judgment in WP No. 4389/03 and WP
No.7018/2003. In turn, by order dated 17.03.2020 ( Annexure RJ-5) ( filed with
rejoinder) the petitioner was treated as regular driver in the work charge and
contingency paid establishment in the pay scale of 5200-20,200 + GP 1900 and with
annual increment due with effect from 03.04.2014.
5. Shri Manoj Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although
petitioner is working from 1979 but if petitioner's status is examined as per order
dated 17/03/2020 (Annexure RJ-5), it will be clear that petitioner is working in the
Work Charged Establishment w.e.f. 03/04/2014. He retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30/06/2023. Thus, he completed more than 9 years of service in
Work Charge Establishment. In the teeth of Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, the
petitioner is entitled to get pension. He placed reliance on the order passed by this
Court in W.P. No. 6355 of 2017 (Bakhatlal vs. State of M.P. & others) (Annexure
RJ-9), another judgment of co-ordinate Bench in W.P. No.8335 of 2021 (Bhama Bai
Janghela vs. State of M.P. & others) and also a Division Bench order passed in W.A.
No. 821 of 2017. It is urged that a combined reading of these verdicts make it clear
that an employee who completed 6 years service in contingency paid establishment
is entitled to get pension. Thus, respondents have committed an error in declining
the benefit of pension.
6. Sounding a contra note, Shri Dev Datt Bhave, learned Panel Lawyer placed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5965
3 WP-4487-2025
reliance on various paragraphs of return. It is submitted that petitioner was not
recruited as per the relevant recruitment Rules initially and, therefore, he is not
entitled to get the benefit of pension. He further submits that petitioner was never
appointed on any sanctioned post in the Work Charged Establishment, his case for
regularization was considered and rejected by order dated 21/07/2014 (Annexure R-
1). Thus, he is not entitled to get the benefit of Pension Rules.
7. Parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated hereinabove.
8. I have heard the parties at length and perusedthe record.
9. As pointed out by Shri Manoj Chansoriya, learned counsel for the petitioner, the
order dated 17/03/2020 (Annexure RJ/5) makes it clear that petitioner was given the
benefit of pay-scale and increment on the post of regular Driver in the Work
Charged Establishment w.e.f. 03/04/2014. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the
order of department dated 17/03/2020. This Court finds substance in the argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner that even if his services are count in the Work
Charged Establishment w.e.f. 03/04/2014, he completed qualifying service of 6
years, It is seen that this Court in Bakhatlat (supra) and Bhama Bai Janghela (supra)
granted the benefit of pension after completion more than six years of service. In
Bhama Bai Janghela (supra), this court considered a Division Bench order passed in
W.A. No.821 of 2017 dated 25/02/2019 and opined that no interference is warranted
because the State Government is following 'the practice of granting family pension
to widows of employees who had completed six years of qualifying service meaning
thereby the qualifying service has been considered to be of 6 years instead of 10
years. In view of common string of principles laid down in these Court orders, the
petitioner deserves to. succeed. Whether or not petitioner's initial appointment was
as per Recruitment Rules will not make any difference if petitioner as per order
dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure R-J/5) has completed six years' continuous service till
his retirement. For the same reason, even if petitioner was not regularized by
Annexure R-1, it will not take away benefit of Pension Rules if he has completed
stipulated years of service before his retirement.
10. In the opinion of this Court, if the petitioner has completed more than six years
of service on the date of his retirement, the respondents shall treat him to be eligible
to get the benefit of pension and other beneficiary benefits under the Pension Rules.
11. Resultantly, respondents in that case shall calculate the pension and other
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:5965
4 WP-4487-2025
benefits as per Pension Rules and grant said benefits to the petitioner within 90 from
the date of production of copy of this order, failing which it will carry 6% interest
till the date of actual payment.
12. The Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. "
4. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner by examining his
parity with that of the case of the petitioner in W.P. 12237/2019 and if
present petitioner is found to be at par, then similar benefits be extended to
the petitioner, otherwise a reasoned order be communicated to the petitioner.
5. Let exercise be completed within a period of two months from the
date of production of copy of this order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
MISHRA
