Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gangaram vs Public Works Department on 10 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1 WA-818-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 10th OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 827 of 2019
PANNALAL
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WITH
WRIT APPEAL No. 1591 of 2018
JADAV BAI
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 679 of 2019
BHAGIRATH
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 12-03-2025
18:39:53
2 WA-818-2019
Appearance:
Shri Praveen Bawse, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 807 of 2019
SMT. KAILASH BAI
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 808 of 2019
PRABHULAL
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 810 of 2019
GOPILAL
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 12-03-2025
18:39:53
3 WA-818-2019
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 811 of 2019
RAMPRASAD
Versus
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND IRRIGATION RESOURCES AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 816 of 2019
MANGILAL
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 818 of 2019
GANGARAM
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 12-03-2025
18:39:53
4 WA-818-2019
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 826 of 2019
NARAYAN SINGH
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 828 of 2019
RAMCHANDRA
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 833 of 2019
BANE SINGH
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 834 of 2019
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 12-03-2025
18:39:53
5 WA-818-2019
SMT. GANGA BAI
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
WRIT APPEAL No. 835 of 2019
NEETU BAI
Versus
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents / State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Rusia
Since the controversies in these writ appeals are identical in nature,
therefore, with the joint request of the parties, these appeals are analogously
heard and being decided by this common order.
The appellants / writ petitioners have filed the present Writ Appeals
under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya
Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the common order dated
06.08.2018 passed by the Writ Court, whereby all the writ petitions have
been dismissed by denying the benefit of pension to the petitioners therein.
02. All the writ petitioners were appointed on the post of Gangman
6 WA-818-2019
in the M.P. Public Works Department. After attaining the age of
superannuation, they retired from the service from the post of Gangman. The
date of appointment, date of retirement and period of service are as under:-
Sl. Particular Date of Retirement Service Barred by
No. appointment date period limitation
Panna Lal
01. 01.05.1971 30.12.2001 30 years 193 days
Kailash Bai
02. 01.08.1982 30.12.2009 27 years 193 days
Prabhulal
03. 28.04.1984 30.06.2007 23 years 193 days
Gopilal
04. 01.01.1978 31.10.2014 36 years 193 days
Ramprasad
05. 01.03.1983 09.03.2017 34 years 193 days
Mangilal
06. 15.06.1976 30.07.2016 40 years 193 days
Gangaram
07. 01.04.1978 30.06.2011 33 years 193 days
Narayan Singh
08. 01.01.1978 29.02.2016 38 years 194 days
Ramchandra
09. 30.06.1987 31.07.2015 28 years 194 days
Bane Singh
10. 01.07.1978 30.09.2016 38 years 194 days
Ganga Bai
11. 15.06.1976 31.12.2009 33 years 194 days
Neetu Bai
12. 02.02.1989 29.08.2006 17 years 194 days
03. The writ petitioners approached the Writ Court claiming pension
under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged & Contingency
Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (in short 'the Pension Rules of 1979')
on the ground that under the definition of Rule 2(C), they had acquired the
status of "permanent employee" after completion of 15 years of service. The
Writ Court has dismissed all the writ petitions by placing reliance upon a
judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta
7 WA-818-2019
Shukla (Smt.) v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2011
(3) M.P.L.J. 210 . Hence, these writ appeals are filed before the Division
Bench. Since there is a delay in filing these writ appeals, therefore, separate
application has been filed seeking condonation of delay.
04. After notice, the State of M.P. has not filed the reply to oppose
the application for condonation of delay. All these appellants are retired
employees and not getting pension from the State, therefore, they could not
preferred writ appeals within time. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in
the application, which is supported by an affidavit, we hereby condone the
delay.
Heard Finally.
05. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants / writ petitioners
submits that the learned Writ Court has wrongly placed reliance upon
judgment delivered in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) because the said
case was related to the Driver whereas the petitioners were appointed to the
post of Gangman. In the said writ petition, the husband of Mamta Shukla
was working as Driver, who was appointed as daily wager and later on
regularized in the service. The Full Bench while hearing the case of Mamta
Shukla did not consider the earlier judgment delivered by the Full Bench in
the case of Vishnu Mutiya & Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others reported in 2006 (1) M.P.L.J. 23 , in which Gangman has been held as
the permanent employee under provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Work
Charged & Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service) Rules, 1976 and entitled to continue in the service up to age of 62
8 WA-818-2019
years, therefore, the Pension Rules, 1979 applies to them. Since the Full
Bench did not consider the judgment delivered in the case of Vishnu Mutia
(supra) while hearing the case of Mamta Shukla, therefore, it cannot be said
to be a good law and has wrongly been applied in the present case.
5.1. It is further submitted that one Madanlal Sharma was appointed
as Mason in the year 1974 and classified as permanent employee by the
Labour Court which was challenged up to this High Court and the same was
affirmed. Thereafter, he approached the Writ Court by way of W.P. No.8950
of 2012 and vide order dated 11.08.2016, the writ petition was allowed
directing to extend the benefit of pension by placing reliance upon a
judgment delivered in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v/s
Ramchandra Singh reported in 2013 SCC OnLine MP 6012 . Thereafter, the
State filed W.A. No.1444 of 2018 before the Division Bench. Vide order
dated 20.09.2019, the writ appeal was allowed, in which the order of Writ
Court was set aside. Thereafter, Madanlal approached the Apex Court by
way of Civil Appeal No.14753 of 2024 and vide order 19.12.2024, the Apex
Court allowed the appeal and the order of the Writ Court has been upheld. So
far as Gangmen are concerned, this issue is no more res integra and they are
entitled for pension. Therefore, the impugned order of Writ Court be set
aside.
06. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents
/ State submits that the writ petitioners' initial appointment was not in
accordance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Work Charged &
Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
9 WA-818-2019
Rules, 1976, therefore, their past service cannot be counted in the qualifying
service under Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979. In view of the judgment
passed in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) , the Writ Court has not
committed any error in dismissing the writ petitions. Hence, these writ
appeals are liable to be dismissed.
Appreciations & Conclusion
07. It is not in dispute that these writ petitioners were engaged /
appointed as Gangman in various Sub-divisions and Divisions of M.P.
Public Works Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the case of
Vishnu Mutiya (supra) , it has been held by the Full Bench that Gangmen are
the employees under the Madhya Pradesh Work Charged & Contingency
Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976, therefore,
they are entitled to continue the service up to the age of 62 years.
08. Rule 2(b) of the Rules of 1976 defines the 'contingency paid
employee' which simply says that a person employed for full time in an
office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is
charged to office contingencies. Like definition 2(H) defines 'work-charged
employee' means a person employed upon the actual execution, as distinct
from general supervision of a specified work or upon subordinate
supervision of the departmental labour, store, running and repairs of
electrical equipment and machinery etc. In this rule, mode of appointment
has not been provided.
09. In the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra) , the Full Bench held that
these Gangmen are the employee under the Madhya Pradesh Work Charged
10 WA-818-2019
& Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1976. Before the judgment passed in the case of Vishnu Mutiya
(supra), even much before this issue came up for consideration before this
Court in the case of Rahisha Begum W/o Late Ashraf Khan v/s The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2010 (4) M.P.L.J. 332 and the
Division Bench held that the contingency paid employee means a person
employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on
monthly basis is entitled for pension under the Pension Rules, 1979. In the
said case, the husband of Rahisha Begum was working as Driver. The
validity of the said judgment was examined in the case of Mamta Shukla
(supra). Even in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra) , the Full Bench held that
if an employee comes within the definition of Work Charged & Contingency
Paid employee as defined in the Pension Rules, 1979, then he is eligible to
count past services for the purpose of qualifying service in accordance with
the Pension Rules, 1979 and the judgment passed in the case of Rahisha
Begum (supra) is not per inquriam. Even the case of Mamta Shukla (supra )
also is in favour of these writ petitioners which has wrongly been applied by
the Writ Court to dismiss their claim of pension. In the case of Vishnu
Mutiya (supra) which has not been overruled till date, the Full Bench had
already held that the Gangman comes within the definition of Work Charges
& Contingency Paid employees under the Madhya Pradesh Work Charged &
Contingency Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1976. Hence, in view of the verdict given in the case of Mamta Shukla
(supra), the Gangmen are also entitled for pension under the Pension Rules,
11 WA-818-2019
1979. If both the judgments of Mamta Shukla & Vishnu Mutiya (supra) are
read jointly, the writ petitioners are liable to be pensioned under the Pension
Rules, 1979.
10. Apart from above, the Single Bench in W.P. No.8950 of 2012
held that the petitioner being a Mason is entitled for pension in view of the
judgment passed in the case of Ramchandra Singh (supra). The State of M.P.
& Ramchandra is another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A. No.179 of 2010, in which Ramchandra being Gangman appointed on
Muster Roll in the year 1957, regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and retired in the
year 2000 has been held entitled for pension under the Pension Rules, 1979.
11. The judgment passed by the Single Bench in the case of
Madanlal Sharma (supra) was challenged by the State by way of W.A.
No.1444 of 2018. Although the writ appeal was allowed in favour of the
State Government vide order dated 20.09.2019, but Madanlal challenged the
same before the Apex Court by way of SLP (C) No.18981 of 2021. The
Apex Court granted the leave and registered the same as Civil Appeal
No.14753 of 2024. Recently, the Apex Court vide order dated 19.10.2024
has set aside the order passed by the Division Bench and upheld the order of
Writ Court. The legal heir of Madanlal has been directed to be given the
pensionary benefits along with interest @ 6%. Paragraphs - 14, 15, 16 & 17
of the same are reproduced below:-
''14. Be that as it may, we have noticed that once the Labour
Court directed that Madanlal should be classified as a permanent
employee, the respondents in their appeal petition before the
Industrial Court at Indore had taken a point that Madanlal cannot
be regularized in the absence of a sanctioned post. It is, therefore,
12 WA-818-2019
clear that the respondents were well and truly aware of the
implications of the order of the Labour Court which required them
to regularize his service on a post. If no post was available then,
Madanlal was required to be placed on a supernumerary post till
such time a sanctioned post became available where he could be
accommodated. The neglect/failure/omission of the respondents in
not conferring
permanent status to Madanlal cannot afford any justification or
good reason for them to take advantage of their own wrong in
depriving Madanlal of his pensionary benefits.
15. It is in these circumstances that we feel constrained to hold
that the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in allowing the
writ petition and holding that Madanlal was entitled to pensionary
benefits from 31st January (sic, March), 2012.
16. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and order of
the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court and restore the
judgment and order of the learned Single Judge.
17. Now that Madanlal has passed away, the retiral benefits to
which he was entitled, treating him to be a permanent employee,
as well as benefit on account of family pension shall be released in
favour of his heirs/legal representatives together with 6% interest
from the date of his retirement within three months from date,
upon compliance with all formalities and proper identification of
his heirs/legal representatives.''
12. Definitions 2(a) & (b) defines the 'contingency paid employee
and work-charged employee' and as per Definition 2(c), permanent employee
means a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has
completed 15 years of service or more is entitled for pension under the
Pension Rules, 1979. Now the period of said 10 years is reduced to 06 years
by way of state amendment in the said Rules. Rule 6 defines commencement
of qualifying service, according to which for calculating qualifying service
of a permanent employee who retires, the service rendered w.e.f. 01.01.1959
onwards shall be counted. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, on absorption of a
permanent employee without interruption against any regular pensionable
post, the service rendered w.e.f. 01.01.1959 onwards shall be counted for
13 WA-818-2019
pension as if such service was render in a regular post. Therefore, these writ
petitioners having rendered more than 30 years of service in Work Charges
& Contingency Paid Establishment are entitled for the pensionary benefits.
In these Bunch of writ appeals, one of the appellants / writ petitioners in
W.A. No.1591 of 2018 had been declared as permanent employee by the
Labour Court.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the common order dated
06.08.2018 passed by the Writ Court is hereby set aside. The appellants /
writ petitioners are entitled for the benefit of pension and same be extended
to them from the date of retirement within three months from today with all
consequential benefits.
14. With the aforesaid, All these Writ Appeals stand allowed.
Let a signed copy of this order be kept in the record of all connected
writ appeals.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK RUSIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Ravi
