Madhya Pradesh High Court

Tulsiram Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 September, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
A T J AB AL P UR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

WRIT PETITION No. 751 of 2020

RAM VISHAL PATERIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WITH

WRIT PETITION No. 14044 of 2010
RAMESHWAR PRASAD GAUTAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 15957 of 2010
LALMANI SEN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17463 of 2010
CHANDRA MOHAN AGARWAL
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND
OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 1356 of 2011
KASHI PRASAD MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 1357 of 2011
MOLE RAM MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 13083 of 2011
SHIV SHARAN SINGH

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7393 of 2013
SONELAL CHADHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7412 of 2013
MOHAN SINGH
Versus
M.P. POWER GENERATING COMPANY LTD. MPPGCL AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7506 of 2013
RAVISHANKAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 16075 of 2013
BIHARI LAL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 2486 of 2015
DHANIRAM SONWANE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3646 of 2016
SMT. PRABHA DEVI PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 13790 of 2016
ENDRABHAN PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 13791 of 2016
R.K. DALAKSHUDU AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 13798 of 2016

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
RAJENDRA PRASAD ARAKKA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 18458 of 2016
SAIYAD WAJAHAT ALI JAFRI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 5676 of 2017
RAMAN KUMAR GOUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7711 of 2017
HARISH CHANDRA THAKUR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7712 of 2017
HARI NARAYAN SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 9418 of 2017
MANMOHAN GOYAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 9722 of 2017
TULSIRAM RAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 12695 of 2017
RAMGOPAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 12931 of 2017
SMT. KAMLA DEVI JANGHELA
Versus

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 14089 of 2017
MADHAV SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 18415 of 2017
KALICHARAN KUSHWAHA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 19378 of 2017
BHIM SINGH CHANDEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 20186 of 2017
RAMESHWAR MALWI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 20322 of 2017
HARISHANKAR MANDHRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 20550 of 2017
MUNSHI LAL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 20552 of 2017
BANSHI LAL BARMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 15 of 2018
KANKAMMA PILLAI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 775 of 2018

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
RAVI SHANKAR SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 1725 of 2018
MAHESH KUMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 2485 of 2018
MAGAN LAL YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3388 of 2018
SARMAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7264 of 2018
JAGAT PRASAD TRIPATHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 8470 of 2018
BIJENDRA KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 11700 of 2018
ASHOK KUMAR SAXENA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 14470 of 2018
UDHAM SINGH KUMRE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 14749 of 2018
BAHADUR SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
WRIT PETITION No. 23935 of 2018
RAMESH LUDHEKAR
Versus
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 25839 of 2018
GANPATLAL MEHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 383 of 2019
MOTILAL MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3423 of 2019
TEKRAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 4201 of 2019
RAMDAYAL RATHOR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 12437 of 2019
RAJENDRA SINGH TOMAR AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17857 of 2019
KAILASH PRASAD MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 26213 of 2019
RAJENDRA PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 27956 of 2019
RAJENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
WRIT PETITION No. 28667 of 2019
BIHARILLA TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 1232 of 2020
LAKHAN LAL BISEN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3144 of 2020
BABULAL SHUKLA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 15969 of 2020
ANAND PARASAD MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3669 of 2021
PARASRAM PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3674 of 2021
IMRATLAL LODHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3677 of 2021
SURAJ PRASAD JHARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 10614 of 2021
RAM NARAYAN SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 12477 of 2021
SUBODDH CHANDRA SHARMA
Versus

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 14313 of 2021
MOHD. FAREED KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 21366 of 2021
NARAYAN RAO SONWANE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 22397 of 2021
GAIBIDEEN VISHWAKARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 2872 of 2022
ROSHAN LAL PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 2876 of 2022
OM PRAKASH SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3237 of 2022
RAMAVATAR TELI (SAHU)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 4152 of 2022
PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 4345 of 2022
RAM LAKHAN KEWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 4716 of 2022
RANJEET SINGH

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 8259 of 2022
SATISH SAKERGAYE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 8596 of 2022
PARASNATH TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 16792 of 2022
RAJA RAM KHAMPARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17185 of 2022
NAND KUMAR PANDY
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 19918 of 2022
PRADEEP KUMAR PATEL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 20934 of 2022
UMESH KUMAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 24423 of 2022
AMBIKESHWAR PRASAD TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 25316 of 2022
LAXMAN SINGH RANA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 26686 of 2022

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
PAVAN HARINKHEDE (RETIRED)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 27044 of 2022
SHRI MUNEENDRA PRASAD PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 1209 of 2023
JITENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7885 of 2023
RAMAYAN SHARAN DWIVEDI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 10628 of 2023
SHIVKUMAR VISHKARMA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 13242 of 2023
RAM KISHOREDUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 13810 of 2023
GYAN PRAKASH MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 18586 of 2023
PRADEEP KUMAR NAMDEO
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 20774 of 2023
MAHESH KUMAR BORKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
WRIT PETITION No. 23611 of 2023
RAMADHAR VERMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 24359 of 2023
JHANAKLAL JHARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 29163 of 2023
BALMIK KACHHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 31859 of 2023
SATISH KUMAR SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 3544 of 2024
SMT. RAJAN MAURYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 5820 of 2024
TULSIRAM PATEL
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JABALPUR AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 7531 of 2024
GADADHAR PRASAD CHARAMKAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 8905 of 2024
GOPIKA PRASAD MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 10389 of 2024
RAJA BHAIYA GAUTAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
WRIT PETITION No. 10452 of 2024
SUSHIL YADAV
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JABALPUR AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 11061 of 2024
SANTOSH KUMAR PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 14497 of 2024
ROSHAN LAL RAO AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 21460 of 2024
BHAGWAT PRASAD KEWAT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 29321 of 2024
GAJRAJ PRASAD TIWARI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 32434 of 2024
PRADEEP KUMAR MALVIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 40244 of 2024
RAJENDRA MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 5472 of 2025
BHANU SINGH JANGHELA AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 6858 of 2025
GOVIND SINGH
Versus

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 13228 of 2025
SIYARAM SHARAN PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 14122 of 2025
HANSH KUMAR PANDEY AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 15877 of 2025
HIMMATLAL PICHHODE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 15878 of 2025
DUKHLAL NAGPURE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17460 of 2025
KHUMANLAL BISEN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17476 of 2025
BHAGCHAND THAKREY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17484 of 2025
MAHESH KUMAR PACHORI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17767 of 2025
KHUBCHAND RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17769 of 2025
SMT. LEELABAI KATRE

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17798 of 2025
SMAIL AHMAD QURESHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17811 of 2025
HEERAMAN LILHARE (RETIRED)
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17817 of 2025
SURESH CHAND CHANDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 17820 of 2025
KUNWARLAL CHOUDHARY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 18988 of 2025
SAUKHILAL NAPIT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 19459 of 2025
LAXMI NARAYAN SAINI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 19738 of 2025
UMASHANKAR MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 23437 of 2025
GANGA PRASAD CHAKPAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

WRIT PETITION No. 30064 of 2025

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR
JYOTISHI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
6:35:17 PM
RAJENDRA PRASAD SONI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

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.

Shri Shri V.P. Tiwari - Govt. Advocate for the respondents / State.

ORDER

(Reserved on 21/08/2025)
(Pronounced on 27/09/2025)

All these petitions have been filed by employees who were initially
appointed as Daily wager employees and subsequently regularized upon
finding their initial appointment to be irregular, and not illegal. They in
these petitions are seeking same relief of reckoning of services spent by the
petitioners as Daily Rated Employees prior to they being regularized in
regular establishment or in regular work charged establishment as per
policy of the State Government dated 09.1.1990 or 16.05.2007, which was
framed by the State Government for regularization of daily rated employees
who had completed a requisite years of service as Daily Rated Employees

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
and who had requisite qualification for the post and their appointments
were not illegal and were only irregular.

2. Some of these petitioners have been regularized as per policy dated
09.1.1990, which was a more lenient policy having more lenient terms and
conditions for regularization, because it was framed before the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs.
Umadevi
(2006) 4 SCC 1.

However, after judgment of the case of
Umadevi

(supra), in pursuance to directions of the Hon'ble Constitution Bench as
contained in paragraph 53 thereof, the State Government came out with a
stricter policy dated 16.05.2007, which has been modified and amended
from time to time. This policy contains more strict parameters for assessing
whether the employee has requisite qualification for the post and whether
his appointment is illegal or mere irregular. The petitioners in these set of
petitions have either been regularized in terms of policy dated 09.1.1990 or
have been regularized in terms of subsequent policy dated 16.05.2007.

3. Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the Daily
Wage Services of the petitioners have to be reckoned as Contingency Paid
Services, because the Daily Rated Employees are paid from contingencies
and when they are named as Daily Rated Employees but get paid monthly,
then they are Temporary Contingency Paid Employees, who acquire
deemed status of permanency as per Clause 2(c) readwith 6(3) of M.P.
Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979
(herein after for short referred to as "Pension Rules, 1979"). It is argued
that the petitioners upon being engaged as Daily Rated Employees are in
fact, holders of status of temporary contingency paid employees, because
there is no other mode for payment of Daily Rated Employees as per M.P.
Works Department Manual, M.P. Treasury Code and M.P. Finance Code

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
under which payments are made in the Works Departments of the State
Government. It is argued that as per Clause 2 (c) of Pension Rules 1979,
permanent employee means a Contingency Paid Employee or Work
Charged Employee, who completes 15 or more years of service on or after
01.01.1974 and in case of those employees who had attained the age of
superannuation on or after 01.04.1981, permanent employee would mean
an employee who completes 10 years of service on or after 01.01.1974.

4. It is vehemently argued that a special provision has been carved out
for the purpose of pension whereby upon completion of 6 years service
against any regular pensionable post from 01.01.1974, the services shall be
counted towards pension, if they are in excess of 6 years and rendered as
Temporary Worked Charged Employee.

5. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently
argued that the Division Bench of this Court in
Rahisha Begum v. State of
M.P.
, (2010) 4 MP LJ 332 (MP), has interpreted the amended Clause 6(3)
of the Pension Rules 1979 as inserted w.e.f. 30.01.1996 and therefore, in
terms of the said provision of the Pension Rules, the petitioners are entitled
to count their services for the purpose of pension upon they being
regularized either in work charged or regular establishment and
undisputedly, now their services are otherwise pensionable if they stand
regularized prior to 01.1.2005, or their length of service for purpose of
pension is counted from a date prior to 01.1.2005. It is argued that if Daily
Rated Services are counted, then the initial date of appointment of some
petitioners would be advanced to a date prior to 01.01.2005 which is the
cut-off date of old pension scheme and even those petitioners who on
getting regularization before 01.1.2005 are still entitled to pension, but they
also will stand to gain because their pensionable service would increase

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
and therefore, they would get more pension upon getting benefit of
qualifying service for the period they had spent as Daily Rated Employees.

6. The counsel for the petitioners have argued by placing reliance on
judgment of the Division Bench in case of
Pannalal vs. Public Works
Department (W.A. No.827
of 2019) decided at Indore Bench. So also the
judgments of various co-ordinates benches whereby identical reliefs have
been granted some of which been confirmed up to the Hon'ble Apex Court.

As an example, the judgment in case of Netram Sharma (WP No. 6135 of
2016, as affirmed in WA No. 101 of 2017, Gwalior) has been relied by
learned counsel for the petitioners, so also in case of
Laxmikant Mishra
Vs. State of M.P., W.P. No.
5133 of 2016 (Gwalior), that has been affirmed
upto Hon'ble Supreme Court by order Annexure P-13.

It is argued that
judgment in case of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) has been followed and the
aforesaid order has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide
Annexure P-13.

7. The counsel for the petitioners have also vehemently argued that the
petitioners were paid on monthly basis and since they were monthly paid
employees, they would be treated to be Contingency Paid Employees. It is
argued that a mere Daily Rated Employee would be one who is getting paid
on muster roll on daily basis, i.e. for the actual number of days he
works. He works as per minimum daily wages notified by the Labour
Commissioner or Competent Authority of the State Government from time
to time. Once he gets paid as per minimum monthly wages declared by
Collector/Labour Commissioner, he gets the status of temporary
Contingency paid employee.

8. Further, it is argued that the petitioners were not being paid on daily
basis but were being paid on monthly basis and therefore, upon they started

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
to get paid on monthly basis, then as per Clause 2(a) of Pension Rules 1979
that defines a Contingency Paid Employee, he gets the status of
Contingency Paid Employee. It is argued that the said definition defines a
Contingency Paid Employee as one who is employed for full time in office
or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and is being charged to
office contingencies and who is not employed only for certain period in a
year, i.e. he is not a seasonal employee. Learned counsel for the petitioners
have vehemently argued that since the petitioners had ceased to be paid on
a daily basis and therefore, they had earned the entitlement to be declared
as Contingency Paid Employees and they have to be treated as Contingency
Paid Employees. It is also argued that from the date after entering service,
they earned the status of Temporary Contingency Paid Employee from the
date they were started to be paid on monthly basis. It is argued that the
petitioners would therefore be entitled to count their pre-regularization
services in terms of Rule 6(3) if they are in excess of 6 years or otherwise
in terms of Rule 2(c) if they are in excess of 15 years, from very first year.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court recently in the case of Madan Lal Sharma vs. State of M.P.
[SLP (Civil) No.18981 of 2021] decided on 19.12.2024 has even held that
those employees, who are declared classified as permanent employees by
the Labour/Industrial Tribunals, they are also entitled to be covered for
pension and their services are also pensionable.
It is further argued that
recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dharam Singh vs State of
UP and others
(Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018) decided on 19.08.2025 has
held that the State Government cannot weaponise the judgment of
Umadevi

(supra) against Daily Related Employees and directed in that particular
case that all those employees, who have been retired shall be granted
regularization w.e.f. 24.04.2002 until the date of the superannuation, for

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
pay fixation arrears and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other
terminal benefits. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioners cannot be
short-changed by the State Government, more so when they have given
their entire life to the State Government by firstly being engaged as Daily
Rated Employee, then being paid on monthly basis and then later on, upon
being regularized.

10. It is argued that the petitioners are not rank Daily Rated Employees,
who were illegally appointed, but they are those persons whose
appointment was legal and their appointment was only irregular in nature
on account of which the concerned authority of the State has
subsequently regularized their appointments, which is not in dispute and
presently all these petitioners are enjoying regular status in the State
Government on one or the other post in Class-III & Class-IV cadres.

11. It is further argued that though the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of
Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P.
, (2011) 3 MP LJ 210 (FB) has held
that the work charged and contingency paid employees are not entitled to
count their pre-regularization services for the purpose of pension unless
their appointment is in consonance with the recruitment rules for work
charged and contingency paid employees.

However, it is argued that even
in
the said judgment
, the Full Bench has not set aside the case of
Rahisha
Begum
(supra) and by protecting the dictum of
Rahisha Begum
(supra),
the Full Bench has only held that the dictum in the case of
Rahisha Begum

(supra) is not per incuriam.

Therefore, the judgment of
Mamta Shukla

(supra) may seem to be against the petitioners, but it is actually not against
the petitioners.

It is argued that even if to any extent the judgment of

Mamta Shukla
(supra )is deemed to be adverse to the case of the
petitioners, then, in that situation, the said part has to be treated to be per

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
incuriam, because the earlier Full Bench judgment of this Court in Vishnu
Mutiya v. State of M.P., (2006) 1 MP LJ 23 (FB) has skipped the attention
of the subsequent Full Bench and the subsequent Full Bench having failed
to notice the earlier Full Bench, therefore, the subsequent Full Bench to the
extent it is contrary to judgment in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra) has
to be treated as per incuriam.

It is argued that the subsequent Full Bench
could not have passed any order contrary to dictum of the earlier
Full Bench, which had considered the same two sets of Rules and after
considering both, had held that in case two different rules contained
different provisions, then the one which is more beneficial to the
employees has to be accepted in the welfare state, but in
Mamta Shukla

(supra) a contrary view has been taken that even though the pension
rules are more beneficial in defining the Contingency Paid Employee, but
since the less beneficial definition as contained in the substantive
recruitment rules is there, the said definition which is less beneficial to the
petitioners has been given priority over the more beneficial definition given
in the pension rules.

12. On these grounds, it is prayed to follow the judgment of the case of
Vishnu Mutiya (supra). It is argued that some of these cases are such
where the employees did not complete six years in Daily Rated or
Contingency Paid Establishment and they are seeking reckoning of their
services rendered as Daily Rated or Temporary Contingency Paid
Employees, which is of less than six years duration.

13. Therefore, in all these cases it is prayed that the services rendered by
the petitioners as alleged Daily Rated Employee be treated to be Temporary
Contingency Paid Employee as they were paid on monthly basis, and upon
regularization, their entire length of service in excess of six years, or

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
even if it is less than six years, be calculated for the purpose of pension
from the date of initial engagement as Daily Rated Employee at least for
the purpose of pension; and if the pension rules give a more lenient
interpretation, then though the benefits for seniority, promotion etc. may
not enure good under the substantive recruitment rules, but for the purpose
of pension once a more lenient definition is there it will enure good only
for the purpose of pension if not for anything else. On these grounds it is
prayed to allow the petition.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the
petitions. It is argued that the contention of the petitioners is utterly
misconceived in view of judgment of the Full Bench of this court in
Ashok
Tiwari vs. M.P. Textbook Corporation
reported in 2010 (2) MP LJ 662,
wherein the Full Bench has held that a Daily Rated Employee is not
governed by any service rules and his service conditions are not
defined. He does not hold any post. It is argued that though it was so held
in relation to the question whether Daily Rated Employee can be
transferred, but still it has been held by the Full Bench that Daily Rated
Employee does not hold any post, he does not work against any post and he
is not subjected to any defined service conditions and no service rules are
applicable to the Daily Rated Employee. Therefore, now the petitioners
cannot claim that their Daily Rated Services be held to be covered under
the Pension Rules of 1979 and they be given the status of Temporary
Contingency Paid Employees for the period they were working as Daily
Rated Employees. The petitioners cannot claim that their daily rated
services be covered under the pension rules of 1979 and they be given the
status of temporarily contingency paid employees for the period they were
working as daily rated employees.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
15. It was argued that the petitioners cannot claim that their daily rated
services be covered under the pension rules of 1979 and they be given the
status of temporarily contingency paid employees for the period they were
working as daily rated employees. The petitioners cannot claim that their
daily rated services be covered under the Pension Rules of 1979 and they
be given the status of temporary contingency paid employees for the
period they were working as Daily Rated Employees.

16. Learned counsel for the State further argued that the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dharam Singh
(supra) and in the case
of Madanlal Sharma (supra) would not apply to these cases, because the
petitioners are neither classified as permanent employees as was the case of
Madanlal Sharma (supra) nor it is a case whereby they were illegally left
out for being considered for regularization as was the case in
Dharam
Singh
(supra). Therefore, it is argued that the petitioners are not entitled to
be given the benefits that they are seeking in these petitions.

17. It is further argued that subsequently there has been further
amendment in Pension Rules, 1979 on 27.02.2023 as corrected on
28.12.2023 and now as per the amended provisions of Rule 6(3) of Pension
Rules, 1979, there has been a drastic amendment in Rule 6 (3) and
therefore, in view of subsequent amendment in Pension Rules, 1979 which
has been made with retrospective effect from 30.01.1996, the judgment of
the Division Bench in W.A. No.827 of 2019 rendered on 10.03.2025 as
well as the judgment in the case of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) are now
distinguishable and per incuriam as these judgments do not take into
account the amended Rule 6(3), which was not in existence at the time of
rendering of the judgment in the case of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) and the
amendment escaped the consideration of the Division Bench in the case of

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
Panna Lal (supra) in W.A. No.827 of 2019. Therefore, the petitioners
cannot seek benefit of both these judgments, that no longer remain relevant
after the amendment of 2023.

18. It is further argued that the petitioners have already been given some
benefits by regularizing them either in regular establishment or work
charged establishment and giving them regular salary with increment,
though they were irregularly appointed by back door and now they cannot
seek reckoning of pre-regularization services, which was nothing, but back
door appointment as Daily Rated Employee, and cannot be reckoned for
the purpose of pension. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the
petitions.

19. Heard.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioners initially further argued that in
view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dharam
Singh
(supra) and in the case of Madanlal Sharma (supra), now all the
issues stand closed, because now pension has been recognized a right, and
the dispute whether the petitioners are contingency paid employees or not,
no longer remains germane and relevant.

21. However, upon considering the issue, it is observed that the
petitioners are not classified as permanent employees as was the case of
Madanlal Sharma (supra), nor it is a case whereby they were illegally left
out for being considered for regularization as was the case in
Dharam
Singh
(supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held them entitled to
be regularized from 2002. Therefore, simply on basis of these judgments,
the petitioners cannot be held entitled to calculate daily rated services for
pension.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
22. Then, counsel for the petitioners had argued that even if the benefit
of Pension Rules, 1979 would not enure to the petitioners, then their
services have to be deemed to be pensionable because a daily rated
employee is deemed to be a temporary employee and as per the provisions
of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules 1976, the services rendered as
temporary employees have to be counted.

23. The aforesaid assertion is found to be utterly misplaced because the
concept of temporary services flows from the M.P. Government Servants
(Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960 (for short 'Rules
of 1960') which defines a temporary Government Servant in its own manner
as per Rule 2(d) as under:

"2(d). "Temporary service" means officiating or substantive
service in a temporary post, and officiating service in a
permanent post, under State Government and also includes the
period of leave with allowance taken while on temporary service
and complete years of approved war-service, which have been
counted for fixation of pay and seniority."

24. The petitioners being daily rated employees do not fall within the
definition of temporary employee as per the aforesaid Rules of 1960 and
hence this ground holds no foundation. Therefore, this Court proceeds to
examine the case of petitioners on the anvil of law relating to Contingency
paid employees.

25. The issue that arises for determination in these matters is whether all
these petitioners who have now undisputedly been regularized in services
of the State Government but whether their pre-regularization services
should be counted for the purpose of pension only. It is undisputed that if
the pre-regularization services are counted for the purpose of pension then
the services of most of the petitioners would convert into pensionable

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
services and in some other cases, the number of years of pensionable
services would increase which would increase the quantum of pension.

26. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners, the law relating to
work-charged and contingency paid employee is required to be seen first.
The State Government has framed the Pension Rules of 1979 for the work-
charged and contingency paid employees which contains definition of
contingency paid employee in Rule 2(a) and permanent employee in Rule
2(c) as under:-

"2(a) "Contingency paid employee" means 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 excluding the employees who are employed
for certain period only in a year.

2(c) "Permanent employee" means a contingency paid
employee or a work-charged employee who has completed
fifteen years or service or more on or after the 1st January,
1974:

[Provided that in respect of a contingency paid employee
who has attained the age of superannuation on or after 1-4-
1981, permanent employee means an employee who has
completed ten years of service on or after the January 1,
1974.]"

27. The said rules also had an amendment on 01.01.1996 inserting a
special provision that on absorption of temporary employee without
interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered from
01.01.1974 onwards if it is more than six years, shall be counted for
pension as if it was rendered in regular post. The relevant Rule 6(3) as was
originally inserted on 01.01.1996 initially was as under:-

"(3) On absorption of temporary employee without
interruption against any regular pensionable post, the
service rendered with effect from Ist January, 1974 onwards,

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
if such service is of less than six years shall be counted for
pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post."

28. The substantive rules governing the services of work-charged and
contingency paid employee in the three engineering departments of the
State Government are identical. This Court shall consider the M.P.
Irrigation Department (Work-charged and Contingency Paid
Employees) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977, (for
short, referred as "Recruitment Rules"). All the three engineering
Departments are stated to be having identical rules governing the
substantive service conditions of contingency and work-charged employees
as per which contingency paid employee is defined as under:-

2. Definitions.-

(b) Contingency paid employee means 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.
Excluding the employees who are employed for certain periods
only in the year.

29. The aforesaid definition of contingency paid employee means a
person employed for full-time in office or establishment and who is paid on
monthly basis and whose pay is debitable to office contingency and is not a
seasonal employee. The Full Bench in the case of
Mamta Shukla
(supra)
had relied on Rule 7 of the substantive Recruitment Rules of 1977 which
lay down in Rule 7 (2-A), that there shall be a selection committee in every
District and as per Rule 7 (2-B) the appointment shall be made as per the
recommendations of the said Selection Committee.

30. The aforesaid provisions are as under:-

"7. Recruitment and promotion.-(1) The establishment under
the appointing authority specified in the Schedule shall

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
constitute a unit for all purposes including recruitment, seniority
and promotion.

(2) Appointment of the Contingency-paid employees shall be
made by one or more of the following methods as may be
prescribed, namely:-

(i) Direct recruitment;

(ii) Promotion;

(iii) Transfer.

2-A) There shall be constituted in every district a committee
consisting of-

(a) a Class-I Gazetted Officers nominated the concerning Chief
Engineer-Chairman.

(b) District Tribal Welfare Officer or District Organiser Tribal
Welfare as the case may be Member.

(c) Employment Officer of the district concerned-Member,

(2-B) Appointment to any post under the Service shall be made
in accordance with the recommendations of the committee
constituted under subrule (2-A).

(2-C) Nothing in these rules shall effect reservations and other
concessions required to be provided for the members of
Scheduled Castes and members of Scheduled Tribes and other
special categories of persons in accordance with the orders
issued by the State Government from time to time in this regard.

(2-D) Direct recruitment to the posts under the service shall be
made out of the list of candidates furnished by the Employment
Exchange on being asked for by the establishment concerned for
the purpose and where no suitable candidates are available at
the Employment Exchange, the recruitment shall be made after
inviting applications through advertisement.

(2-E) Education at qualifications for filling up the posts shall be
such as are prescribed for regular employees under the State
Government on corresponding posts Where there are no
corresponding posts, the qualifications shall be prescribed by the
appointing authority.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
(2-F) Where candidates possessing requisite qualifications in
respect of training are not available untrained candidate may be
recruited subject to the condition that they qualify themselves
within a specified period after availing of the opportunity for
training to be provided by the establishment concerned in this
respect.

It is not in dispute that this procedure has not been followed in most
of the cases, and the employees were simply engaged as Daily rated
employees, and were lateron regularized.

31. The Full Bench in the case of
Mamta Shukla
(supra) has held in
para-24 as under:-

"24. On the basis of above discussion, we hold in regard to the
substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 3 that an employee is
eligible to count his past service, as qualifying service in
accordance with Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979, if he was
appointed in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment
Rules of 1977. We further hold that an employee, who was not
appointed in accordance with the provisions of Recruitment
Rules framed by the concerned department, i.e., the Recruitment
Rules of 1977, would not be eligible to count his past service as
qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension in
accordance with the Pension Rules of 1979 and we answer the
substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 3 accordingly."

32. Though in the subsequent para-25 the Full Bench did not touch the
ratio
laid down by
the earlier Division Bench in the case of
Rahisha
Begum
(supra) that for coverage under the Pension Rules, 1979 there has
to be an appointment in terms of the Recruitment Rules of 1977 by
following the procedure contained therein.

The case of
Rahisha Begum

(supra) has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil)
CC No. 4671/2012 on 23.03.2012.

33. An earlier Full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya (supra) has
held in relation to fixation of superannuation age that since a Gangman is a
contingency paid employee therefore, he is entitled to benefit of Rule-2(c)

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
of the Pension Rules, 1979 which declares that a contingency paid
employee or work-charged employee becomes permanent employee when
he completes 15 years of service. The Full Bench had said that once there
are two sets of rules then those set of rules which benefits the employee
has to be accepted in a welfare state. The Full Bench held as under:-

"13. While deciding the Gulabsingh's case (supra) the 1977
Rules and Pension Rules of 1979 were not brought to the notice
of the Court. Under Rule 6 of 1976 Rules the employees who
were in service for at least fifteen years on 1-1-1974 were
eligible for the status of permanent work charged or contingency
paid employees. This has been made more liberal by the 1979
Rules. Rule 2(c) of the 1979 Rules lays down that a
contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee
becomes permanent employee whenever he completes fifteen
years of his service though it may be after 1-1-1974.

14. It is well known principle of law that when two different
Rules contain different provisions the one which is more
beneficial to the employees has to be accepted in the welfare
State. Considering this fact we find that the law laid down by this
Court in the case of Bharosi (supra) and Bhajanlal (supra) lay
down the correct law while the law laid down by the Gulabsingh
case (supra) is not correct as the view taken in the said case was
taken without considering the 1977 Rules and 1979 Rules. In
such circumstances we hold that the services of gangmen are
governed by the Rules applicable to work charged and
contingency paid employees even though the gangman is not
included in the schedule of 1976 Rules and the age of
superannuation is 62 years as other Class IV employees of the
State Government because they are in comparable category."

(Emphasis supplied)

34. To appreciate the contention of the petitioners that they have been
appointed as contingency paid employees and they are to be reckoned as
temporary contingency paid employees because they are paid from office
contingencies and are paid on monthly basis, the relevant provisions are
required to be seen in MP Works Department Manual, MP Treasury Code
and MP Financial Code.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
35. As per MP Works Department Manual, Clause 1.133 there are three
sets of rules to govern the work-charged and contingency paid employees
in M.P. Public Works Department, Irrigation Department and Public Health
Engineering Department.

36. As per clause 286 and 287 of MP Treasury Code, the following has
been provided:-

"286. (1) Save as hereinafter provided in this rule, on pay of any
kind and no additions to pay may be drawn on bills for
contingent expenditure.

(2) Subject to any general or special orders issued by
Government, the pa of class IV servants by whatever designation
they may be called who have been or may be, declared by
competent authority to be ineligible for pensions and who
discharge the duties of the classes mentioned below, may be
treated a contingent expenditure:-

(a) Hot weather establishment.

(b) Mazdoors engaged on manual labour and paid daily or
monthly wages.

(c) Temporary field establishments on surveys and
settlements.

(d) Sweepers (whether whole-time servants or nor).

(e) Other classes of class IV servants, e.g., dhobies tailors,
syces, grass-cutters, cooks, malis. watermen, cartmen,
dairymen, mochis, barbers, ploughmen, carpenters, etc.

287. Contingent charges incurred on account of the wages of
mazdoors engaged on manual labour and paid at daily or
monthly rates shall be supported by a certificate signed by the
disbursing officer of the effect that mazdoors were actually
entertained and paid."

37. As per the aforesaid provisions provided by clause 286(1) (b) that
Mazdoors engaged on manual labour and paid daily or monthly wages are
paid from "contingent expenditure" of the office. Rule 287 further clarifies

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
that "contingent" charges incurred on accounts of wages of Mazdoor shall
be supported by certificate signed by the officer concerned.

38. The aforesaid provisions as contained in clause 286 and 287 of MP
Treasury Code, duly establish that the payment to daily rated employees or
any labourer engaged has to be made from contingent funds of the
Department.

39. As per clause-43 of Appendix-6 of MP Financial Code, the Collector
is required to fix the wages of Class-IV Government servants paid from
contingency funds. Clause 43 is as under:-

"43. Class IV Government servants paid from contingencies-
Fixation of the pay of:- The Collectors are authorized to fix
annually according to the market rate the pay of the class IV
Government servants paid from contin-gencies such as
watermen, chowkidars, sweepers and others. The Heads of
Departments should send to the Collector of their district a list
showing the nomenclature of servants paid from contingencies
working in their offices whose pay is required to be fixed
according to market rates. The Collector will at the
commencement of each year ascertain the current market rates
for the services in each class or class IV Government servants
prevailing at the more important centres in the district and
announce such rates annually in January. The Heads of
Departments and Deputy Inspector-General of Police may, at
their discretion, introduce the rates from the beginning of the
next financial year. These rates should be regarded as maxima
and should not be exceeded without the previous sanction of the
State Government.

Exception 1. This Rule does not apply to the mazdoors of
Government farm and gardens, ploughmen cattlemen, dairymen,
milkers, mechanics, tractor dri vers, carpenters and black-
smiths, who are paid according to the rates fixed by the Director
of Agriculture. The Director of Agriculture is empowered to fix
the wages of the Bee-Keeper employed in the Entomological
Section of the Agri-culture Department at a rate not exceeding
eight annas per diem.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
Exception 2. This rule does not also apply to ploughmen,
cattlemen, dairymen, milkers, carpenters, blacksmiths and, all
other class IV Government servants, if any, of Cattle-breeding
and Dairy-Farms, excepting mechanics and tractor drivers who
are paid according to the rates fixed by the Director of
Veterinary Services."

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 Rules of 1977.

41. The Full Bench of this Court in the case
Mamta Shukla
(supra) did
not touch the ratio in the case of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) inasmuch as in
Rahisha Begum it has been held by the Division Bench that an employee
who completes 6 years as temporary contingency paid employee he would
be entitled to reckon the period for the purpose of pension as per Rule 6(3)
of Pension Rules, 1979.

Though in
Mamta Shukla
(supra) it has been held
that the appointment has to be in accordance with the provisions mentioned
in the recruitment rules for the work-charged and contingency paid
employees, however despite that in
Mamta Shukla
(supra) the ratio of

Rahisha Begum
(supra) has not been touched.

It is important to note here
that the judgment in the case of
Rahisha Begum
(Supra) has been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex court by dismissing the SLP of the State.

42. Furthermore, the case of
Mamta Shukla
(supra) does not take note
of the earlier Full Bench judgment in the case of Vishnu Mutiya (supra)
whereby the Full Bench held that despite there being variance in the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
recruitment rules and in the pension rules governing contingency paid
employees of the State Government but where two sets of rules are there
then the one which favours the employee has to be followed in the welfare
State and this judgment was not put for consideration before the subsequent
Full Bench whereby, the Full Bench held that the recruitment rules will
take priority over the pension rules.

43. It is in view of this position that various subsequent Benches of this
Court have taken the view that the ratio of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) should
be followed despite the Full Bench judgment in the case of
Mamta Shukla

(supra).

It was also on account of the fact that
Rahisha Begum
(supra) has
been confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Therefore, to the extent of
holding that unless an employee is appointed as per the provisions of the
Recruitment Rules of 1977, he would not count his services for the purpose
of Pension Rules of 1979, the judgment in case of
Mamta Shukla
(supra)
is per incuriam, as it does not take into account the earlier contrary view in
Vishnu Mutiya (supra), that was also by a Full Bench and earlier in time.

44.
In
Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra
, (2014) 16 SCC
623, it was held as under :-

"19. It cannot be over emphasised that the discipline
demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or
diminution of a decision on the application of the per
incuriam rule is of great importance, since without it,
certainty of law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts
would become a costly casualty. A decision or judgment can
be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or
regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the court.
A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not
possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously
pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench; or if
the decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the
views of this Court. It must immediately be clarified that
the per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta. It is often
encountered in High Courts that two or more mutually
irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court are cited at the
Bar. We think that the inviolable recourse is to apply the
earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the
category of per incuriam".

(Emphasis supplied)

45.
In
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
, (2017) 16 SCC 680,
the Constitutional Bench considered and affirmed the judgement of

Sundeep Kumar Bafna
(supra), and while recognizing that the general
principle is to follow the ratio of co-equal bench, held as under :-

"28. In this context, we may also refer to Sundeep Kumar
Bafna v. State of Maharashtra [Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State
of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 623 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
558] which correctly lays down the principle that discipline
demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or
diminution of a decision on the application of the per
incuriam rule is of great importance, since without it,
certainty of law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts
would become a costly casualty. A decision or judgment can
be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or
regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the court.
A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not
possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously
pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench. There
can be no scintilla of doubt that an earlier decision of co-
equal Bench binds the Bench of same strength. Though the
judgment in Rajesh case [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9
SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 :

(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] was delivered on a later date, it
had not apprised itself of the law stated in
Reshma
Kumari [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan
, (2013) 9 SCC
65 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 191 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 826] but
had been guided by
Santosh Devi [Santosh Devi v. National
Insurance Co. Ltd.
, (2012) 6 SCC 421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ)
726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167]. We
have no hesitation that it is not a binding precedent on the
co-equal Bench."

(Emphasis supplied)

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
46.
In
Shah Faesal v. Union of India
, (2020) 4 SCC 1, another
Constitution Bench held as under :-

"29.
In this context of the precedential value of a judgment
rendered per incuriam, the opinion of Venkatachaliah, J., in the
seven-Judge Bench decision of
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [A.R.
Antulay
v. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 372]
assumes great relevance : (SCC p. 716, para 183)
"183. But the point is that the circumstance that a decision is
reached per incuriam, merely serves to denude the decision of its
precedent value. Such a decision would not be binding as a
judicial precedent. A coordinate Bench can disagree with it and
decline to follow it. A larger Bench can overrule such
decision. When a previous decision is so overruled it does not
happen -- nor has the overruling Bench any jurisdiction so to do

-- that the finality of the operative order, inter partes, in the
previous decision is overturned. In this context the word
"decision" means only the reason for the previous order and not
the operative order in the previous decision, binding inter partes.
... Can such a decision be characterised as one reached per
incuriam? Indeed, Ranganath Misra, J. says this on the point :

(para 105)
'Overruling when made by a larger Bench of an earlier decision
of a smaller one is intended to take away the precedent value of
the decision without effecting the binding effect of the decision in
the particular case. Antulay, therefore, is not entitled to take
advantage of the matter being before a larger Bench.'"

31. Therefore, the pertinent question before us is regarding the
application of the rule of per incuriam. This Court while
deciding
Pranay Sethi
case [
National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi
, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ)
248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , referred to an earlier decision
rendered by a two-Judge Bench in Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State
of Maharashtra [Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra,
(2014) 16 SCC 623 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 558] , wherein this
Court emphasised upon the relevance and the applicability of the
aforesaid rule : (
Sundeep Kumar Bafna
case [
Sundeep Kumar
Bafna v. State of Maharashtra
, (2014) 16 SCC 623 : (2015) 3
SCC (Cri) 558] , SCC p. 642, para 19)
"19. It cannot be overemphasised that the discipline demanded
by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution of a decision
on the application of the per incuriam rule is of great
importance, since without it, certainty of law, consistency of
rulings and comity of courts would become a costly casualty. A

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
decision or judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a
statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice
of the court. A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if
it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously
pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench; or if the
decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the views of
this Court. It must immediately be clarified that the per incuriam
rule is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio decidendi
and not to obiter dicta."

(Emphasis supplied)

47. The counsel for the State has tried to distinguish the judgment of the
Division Bench passed recently at Indore in
Pannalal
(supra) in W.A.
827/2009 on the ground that there has been an amendment in the Pension
Rules, 1979 later to the judgment in the case of
Rahisha Begum
(supra)
which has not been noted by the subsequent Benches.

The Division Bench
in
Pannalal
(supra) has held as under :-

"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 & 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,

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
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, 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, 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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
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
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."

48. So far as the 2023 amendment is concerned, it was not placed for
consideration before the Division Bench in the above case. The amendment
has been made vide notification dated 27.02.2023 published in M.P.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
Gazette extraordinary dated 27.02.2023 amending the questioned Rule 6(3)
of Pension Rules, 1979 and there has been a correction in the said
amendment on 28.12.2023. After correction, the amended provision reads
as under:-

"(3) A service made after 1 January, 1974 on the provisions of
any regular pensionable post for any temporary employee,
without any interference, provided that such service is not less
than six years shall be counted for pension suppose that such a
service has been done on a regular basis.".

49. The said amendment has been made effective from 30.01.1996
which is the date when the earlier provision of Rule 6(3) on which the
judgment of the case of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) was based had been
inserted.

Therefore, the provision inserted on 30.1.1996 which was the
basis for judgment in the case of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) has now been
changed with retrospective effect from 30.01.1996 and undisputedly the
vires of the said amendment have not been put to challenge by any of the
petitioners.

50. After the said amendment, the services rendered after 01.01.1974
shall count towards pension only if the services have been rendered on the
provision of any regular pensionable post. Earlier, the provision was
"absorption" on any regular pensionable post but now the provision is that
the temporary "service" should also be on a regular pensionable post.

51. The aforesaid amendment was argued to be self-contradictory
because if there would be temporary service it would not be against a
regular pensionable post and if there would be service against a regular
pensionable post then it would not be a temporary service. However, the
position remains that this kind of amendment that was argued to be cryptic,
has not been challenged before this Court till date, nor in these petitions the

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
said amendment has been put to challenge. Till the amendment is put to
challenge, the ratio of the judgment of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) stands
diluted because this amendment has been made effective from 1-1-1996
and the amendment which was the basis of
Rahisha Begum
(supra) has
now gone away from the very first initial date on which it was incorporated
in the Pension Rules 1979.

52. Despite amendment in Rule 6(3) of Pension Rules, 1979 it is seen
that there has been no change or amendment in Rule 2(c) of the Pension
Rules, 1979 which defines a Permanent Employee as a contingency paid
employee or work-charged employee who has completed 15 years of
service or more after 1.1.1974, and in case of pensioner, who completes 10
years of service.

53. Therefore, on account of amendment dated 27.02.2023, though the
special relaxation given to temporary contingency paid employees
completing at least 6 years of service and to reckon the said service for
pension if they are appointed or absorbed against any regular post has been
diluted, but the provision of Rule 2(c) has still not been diluted.

54. As per Rule 2(c) an employee completing 15 years of service or more
after 1.1.1974 would acquire the status of permanent employee.

55. As per Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules, 1977, the contingency paid
employees are categorized in permanent and temporary categories.

56. The counsel for the State has also relied on the judgments of
Coordinate Benches of this Court and WP. 15726 of 2025 and WP
No.11024 of 2016 and WP No.1268/2021 that identical petitions have been
dismissed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
on judgment of Coordinate Bench in WP 23297 /2022 and WP No.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
13107/2015 so also of the Division Bench in WA. 827/2019 to contend that
the identical petitions have been allowed.

57. However, in the opinion of this Court, unless the subsequent
amendment dated 27.02.2023 is set aside by any court, the petitioners
cannot seek that parity with the case of
Rahisha Begum
(supra).

58.
In none of these cases, the 2023 amendment of Rule 6(3) has been
challenged and now after considering the amendment made in Rule 6(3),
this Court has reached to the conclusion that the ratio of
Rahisha Begum

(supra) has been diluted. However, the force of Rule 2 (a) and 2 (c) has still
not been diluted so far and that if read with Rule 6 (2) of the Pension Rules
1979 and the earlier Full Bench in Vishnu Mutiya, it would give rise to
conclusion that services have to be reckoned for pension if rendered as
temporary contingency paid employee for more than 15 years. Rule 6 (2) of
Pension Rules is as under:-

6. Commencement of qualifying service.

(1) xx xx xx

(2) On absorption of a permanent employee without interruption
against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with
effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted for pension
as if such service was rendered in a regular post.

59. Upon considering the relevant provisions of MP Financial Code and
MP Treasury Code, this Court has already reached to conclusion that Class-
IV and Daily Rated employees in the Engineering Departments are only
paid under contingent expenditure and the contingency paid employees
have been paid on a monthly basis, they then acquire the status of
temporary contingency paid employees. Such employees would not acquire
the status of temporary contingency paid employees only till the date he
continues to paid on muster roll as daily basis. But as soon as he is started

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
to be paid at monthly rates, then as per the definition as contained in
Pension Rules 1979, he would acquire the status of contingency paid
employee.

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.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM
(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.

(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.

(VIVEK JAIN)
rj/nks JUDGE

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR

JYOTISHI

Signing time: 9/27/2025

6:35:17 PM