1 W.A. No.680/2007 Date: 13.12.2011 Shri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellants. Heard on I.A. No.11764/2007, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There is a delay of 360 days in filing the appeal. For the purpose of deciding the said application we have also examined the merits of the matter. 2/ The respondent had filed the Writ Petition No.2167/2006 before this Court raising the plea that he was appointed against the vacant post of labourer, vide order dated 23.6.1983, on daily wages and was continued thereafter. By order dated 16.4.1988 he was placed in the regular pay scale of Rs.725-945 w.e.f. 1.3.1987 and his next date of increment was fixed as 1.3.1988. He was appointed in the regular establishment by the order dated 10.4.1992 and was given the regular pay scale of Rs.750-945. On reaching the age of superannuation, he was retired from service on 31.12.1995 but he was not given the pensionary benefits, therefore, he had approached this Court by filing the writ petition. 2/ The writ petition was opposed by the respondents by filing the reply and taking the plea that since the petitioner 2 had not completed the minimum eligibility period of six years as regular employee, therefore, in terms of the circulars and pension rules he can not be granted the pensionary benefits. 3/ The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has allowed the writ petition holding that the period of employment of the petitioner, as contingency employee, deserves to be counted for the purpose of pension and gratuity, and directing the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case and to pay the gratuity and pension in accordance with the provisions of the rules and as per the observations made in the order. 4/ After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, we have noticed that apart from the judgment which has been noted by the learned Single Judge and the reasoning given in the impugned order, the issue which was raised by the petitioner is also covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of State of M.P. and others Vs. Mohammad Sadiq reported in 2010 (4) MPLJ Page 367 wherein the Division Bench while considering the case of similarly situated employees involving the similar issue has held thus :- “10. On taking into consideration Rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules of 1979 it is luminously clear that a person can be said to be a permanent employee who has completed 15 years of service or more on or after 1st January, 1974 as contingency paid or a work charged 3 employee. Since undisputedly the petitioner was appointed as daily wager in the year 1960, hence in the year 1975 he has completed 15 years of his service. No doubt he was regularized vide Annexure R/2 on 1.1.1996, but before he was regularized he already qualified the qualifying service for the grant of pension. It is not at all in dispute that the qualifying service of 10 years as envisaged in the proviso to definition clause of 'permanent employee' stated in Rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules of 1979, has been reduced to six years vide notification dated 30th January, 1996. But, according to us, the writ petitioner already qualified the qualifying service for obtaining the pension, and hence, according to us, the respondent has been rightly granted relief by the learned Writ Court. 11. Indeed, this aspect of the matter has already been taken note of in paras 4,5 and 6 by the Division Bench of this Court in Shrikrishan (supra) which has also been quoted by the learned Writ Court. We do not find any merit in the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate General for appellants/State that the Pension Rules of 1976 would be applicable upon the contingency paid or work charged employee. If we go through the application of these Pension Rules of 1976 as envisaged in Rule 2 of the said Rules, we find that these Rules are not applicable to certain employees, who have been categorized (ii)(a) to (g). According to clause (a) these Rules would not be applicable for the persons in a work charged establishment, and therefore, since the Pension Rules of 1976 are expressly made inapplicable to those employees. According to us, learned Writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition of the writ petitioner. The Full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya (supra) para 14 has also taken note of that the pension of Gangman would govern by the Pension Rules of 1979. Needless to say the respondent has been retired from the post of Gangman.” 4 5/ Thus, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in issuing the impugned direction and the appellant has no case on merit. On the aspect of delay also we find that the present writ appeal is barred by 360 days and there is no sufficient explanation for the same. 6/ In view of this, the writ appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merit. (SHANTANU KEMKAR) (PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE JUDGE Trilok/-