The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by several government employees, who sought to include their pre-regularisation service as daily-rated or contingency-paid workers for the purpose of calculating pension.
The dispute revolved around the interplay between the M.P. Irrigation Department (Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Recruitment Rules, 1977 (1977 Rules), which govern valid appointment, and the M.P. Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 (1979 Rules), which regulate pension benefits.
The petitioners, initially engaged as daily-rated workers and later regularised under State policies, argued that their earlier service should be treated as temporary contingency-paid service. They cited Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P. 2010 4 MPLJ 332, and Pannalal vs. Public Works Department, 2025:MPHC-IND:6558, to claim that those judgments entitled similarly placed employees to count pre-regularisation service for pension. The petitioners further submitted that although a later Full Bench in Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P., (2011) 3 MPLJ 210 (FB) held that pre-regularisation service could not be counted unless the appointment had been made in accordance with the 1977 Rules, that judgment was per incuriam, as it failed to consider the earlier Full Bench ruling in Vishnu Mutiya v. State of M.P., (2006) 1 MPLJ 23 (FB)
The State opposed the petitions, arguing that daily-rated employees do not hold a sanctioned post, are not governed by service rules, and therefore cannot be brought within the ambit of the 1979 Pension Rules. It relied on Ashok Tiwari v. M.P. Textbook Corporation, 2010 2 MPLJ 662 FB, where the Full Bench had held that daily-rated workers’ service conditions are undefined and they cannot claim benefits of regular employees. The Government also cited the 2023 amendment to Rule 6(3) of the 1979 Rules made retrospectively effective from 30 January 1996, contending that earlier Division Bench decisions like Rahisha Begum are now distinguishable and no longer applicable.
The Court observed that the petitioners had been regularised and were receiving regular salaries, but their earlier daily-rated service could not automatically be treated as pensionable. Justice Vivek Jain reiterated that daily-rated employees neither hold sanctioned posts nor are governed by defined service rules, and the benefit under Rule 6(3) of the 1979 Rules applies only to those whose appointments were made in accordance with the 1977 Rules. The Court noted that unless the subsequent amendment dated February 27, 2023 is set aside by any court, the petitioners cannot seek that parity with the case of Rahisha Begum.
However, referring to the Full Bench decision in Vishnu Mutiya v. State of M.P. (2006) 1 MPLJ 23 (FB), the Court held that petitioners who had worked as monthly-paid daily-rated employees for at least 15 years prior to their regularisation would be entitled to limited relief.
Accordingly, it was directed that:
(i) the period of service rendered in excess of 15 years as monthly-paid employees, though described as daily-rated by the State, shall be counted for pension;
(ii) such employees shall be treated as temporary contingency-paid employees who attain permanent contingency-paid status on completion of 15 years’ monthly-paid service, but only for pension purposes;
(iii) where appointments were not made in accordance with Rule 7 of the 1977 Recruitment Rules, this recognition would not extend to salary or other service benefits;
(iv) the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the vires of the amendment dated 27 February 2023 to Rule 6(3), and if that amendment is declared ultra vires in any future case, they may seek counting of service rendered beyond six years instead of fifteen; and
(v) the State shall comply with the order within 60 days.
The Court thus partly allowed the petitions, granting pensionary benefit for service rendered beyond fifteen years of monthly-paid employment before regularisation, while leaving the effect of the 2023 amendment open to future adjudication.
Appearance
Petitioners- Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi Sr. Advocate with Shri Bramhanand Pandey, Shri Brindavan Tiwari, Shri Choudhary Mayank Singh, Ms. Sanjana Yadav, Shri Gopal Singh, Shri O.P. Dwivedi, Ku. Kanchan Tiwari, Ku. Saloni Kasliwal, Shri Sachin Pandey, Shri Praveen Kumar Verma, Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma, Shri Harish Chand Kohli, Shri Gajendra S. Thakur, Ms. Ankita Khare, Shri Rakesh Singh, Shri Rajesh Kumar Soni, Shri Rahul Mishra, Ms. Ashi Soni, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, Shri Suresh Prasad Khare, Shri Jai Shukla, Shri Gaurav Singh Kaurav and Ms. Malti Dadariya – Advocates for the petitioners in their respective cases.
Respondents- Shri Shri V.P. Tiwari – Govt. Advocate
