Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Vidya Devi Kushwaha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 October, 2025
1 WP-15389-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 15th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15389 of 2018
SMT. VIDYA DEVI KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kaushalendra Nath Pethia - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - G.A. for the respondent - State.
ORDER
The petitioner is widow of deceased employee namely late Lakshmi
Narayan Kushwaha, who was initially appointed in the year 1999, as
apparent from perusal of the service book and he was conferred the status of
Sthai Karmi in the year 2016 and expired on 04.12.2017 after rendering
around 18 years of service.
2. The petitioner seeks family pension on account of death of deceased
employee on the ground that the deceased employee was appointed in the
year 1999 and expired in the year 2017.
3. The claim is countered by the State on the ground that the deceased
employee was a Daily Rated Employee and was a unskilled worker and he
was only given status of Sthai Karmi in accordance with policy dated
07.10.2016, which is only a limited status given to Daily Rated Employee
and there is no provision for payment of pension to Daily Rated Employee
2 WP-15389-2018
nor to Daily Rated Employee conferred with the status of Sthai Karmi as the
petitioner was never regularized nor given status of permanent employee in
terms of Standard Standing Orders.
4. Upon hearing the rival parties, it is seen that the petitioner submits
that the deceased employee was a monthly paid employee and being a
monthly paid employee he is to be treated to be a contingency paid employee
and upon completion of 15 years of service he would be a permanent
employee in contingency paid establishment and upon completion of 15
years of service he would be a permanent employee in contingency paid
establishment and subjected to the provisions of M.P. Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979.
5. The aforesaid issue has been decided recently by this Court in W.P.
No.751/2020 (Ram Vishal Pateriya vs. State of M.P. & others) and it has
been held that the services would count for pension in such cases upon
completion of 15 years of service as monthly paid employee from the date
the employee completes 15 years of service as monthly paid employee,
though given the nomenclature of Daily Rated Employee. This Court held as
under :-
"40. From the aforesaid clause 43 it is crystal clear that the
Collector fixes wages which are popularly known as "Collector
rates" for the employees who are paid from contingency fund.
Therefore, the Daily rated employees, are only paid from
contingent funds, and upon being paid on monthly rates, they
would acquire the status of "contingency paid employees", under
pension Rules of 1979. Though the definition in Recruitment
Rules of 1977 is also same, but in absence of selection being made
as per Rule-7 thereof, the said status shall not enure good for the
3 WP-15389-2018
Rules of 1977.
xx xx xx
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 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.
4 WP-15389-2018
(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 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."
6. In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider the
case of the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment and verify whether
the petitioner was a monthly paid employee and if he was a monthly paid
employee, then the service after completion of 15 years as monthly paid
employee shall be counted as pensionable services in terms of the Pension
Rules, 1979 and if after making such consideration the petitioner is found
entitled for pension, then the same be paid to her and if the petitioner is still
not found entitled to get family pension in accordance with Rules of 1999,
then the outcome be intimated to her.
7. Let the appropriate decision be taken within 60 days.
8. Petition is disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
