Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohan Bai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11640
1 WP-19922-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 2 nd OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19922 of 2023
MOHAN BAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Harish Joshi - advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anand Bhatt, G.A. for respondent/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by non-payment of pension to the
petitioner as per entitlement under the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency
Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 as amended by notification of the
Finance Department dated 13.09.1982 w.e.f. 1.4.1982 and in view of the
order dated 5.08.2013 passed in Writ Appeal No. 179/2010.
The respondent in the reply has relied on the order passed by the
Single Bench in the case of Heeralal Vs. State (W.P. No. 1160/2015) and
other connected writ petitions decided on 6.08.2018.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that said judgment on which the
respondents have relied on vide Annx.R/1 has been set aside by the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal No. 827/2019 (Pannalal Vs. PWD and others) and
other connected appeals. He prays for disposal of this petition in view of the
aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench. The operative part of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11640
2 WP-19922-2023
aforesaid order reads as under :-
"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 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.
Counsel for the State could not point out that present matter is
distinguishable by the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal.
Considering the same, the petition is allowed and impugned order
dated 4.11.2022 (Annx.P/8) is quashed. The petitioner shall be given the
benefit of pension and same shall be extended to the him/her from the date
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:11640
3 WP-19922-2023
of retirement within 3 months from today .
If the claim of the petitioner is not decided within 3 months, the
amount shall carry interest @ 6% per annum.
With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
