Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Kala Bai Vishwakarma vs M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. ... on 5 December, 2025

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

1 WP-96-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 96 of 2019
SMT. KALA BAI VISHWAKARMA
Versus
M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anmol Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Akashmi Trivedi, Proxy Counsel on behalf of Ms. Richa Parasher
- Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed this petition under
Article 226
of the
constitution of India for following relief:-

***अत- माननीय यायमूित महोदय से िनवेदन ह क ितयािचकाकता को
िनदिशत कया जावे क याािचकाकता प रवा रक पे शन का िनधारण कर
पे शन का भुगतान अदा कये जाने के आदे श व िनदश दान कये जावे जो
यायोिचत होगा। अ य सहायता एवं यय जो माननीय यायालय उिचत
समझे दान करे ।**

Counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition is raising a grievance
that petitioner's husband has died in harness in the year 1986, but after his
death, the claim of family pension of the present petitioner has been rejected
by the respondents on the ground that petitioner's husband did not qualify
the requisite period of service so as to claim pension and, therefore, the
family pension cannot be granted to the present petitioner.

2. Pleadings are complete, therefore, looking to the issue involved in

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

2 WP-96-2019
the case and as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the issue has already been settled, this petition is finally heard.

3. By this petition, the petitioner is claiming family pension due to the
death of her husband, who was working in the respondent department as a
work charged & contingency paid employee and after his death, which
occurred on 25.09.1986, no family pension has been granted to the
petitioner.

4. As per the facts of the case, the husband of the petitioner was a daily
wager appointed in the year 1975 and he was paid wages from the Work
Charged and Contingency Paid establishment; he was regularized in the
Work Charged Establishment vide order dated 30.11.1983 and thereafter he

died on 25.09.1986, and as such he had rendered approx. 11 years of services
in the Work Charged Establishment as a regular employee.

5. As per the reply submitted by the respondents, since the petitioner's
husband did not complete the qualifying service as per Rule 4(a) of the
Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension
Rules, 1979 (for short 'Pension Rules, 1979') he was not eligible for
pension. As per Rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules, 1979, the qualifying service
of 10 years was not completed by the husband of the petitioner and,
therefore, the claim of family pension of the petitioner was rejected.

6. The issue involved in the present case has already been settled. The
Writ Court in WP No. 13653/2009 - Smt. Ram Bai Rajak vs. State of M.P.
and others dealing with the same issue has observed as under:-

"The petitioner is wife of late Shri Anandilal Rajak who was

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

3 WP-96-2019
working in the respondents department. Late Shri Anandilal Rajak
was initially appointed as a daily wages employee on 1.3.1978. He
was posted as Chowkidar and subsequently he was regularized on
the work charged and contingency paid employee in the
establishment on 10.6.1996/18.6.1996 vide Annexures P/2 and P/3
respectively. After working for a period about 9 years work
charged and in contingency paid establishment the petitioner's
husband late Shri Anandilal Rajak died on 20.02.2005. After his
death the petitioner claimed pension and other benefits in
accordance to the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1976 and the Madhya Pradesh (Worked charged and Contingency
Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. The claim of the petitioner
for grant of family pension and other benefits have been rejected
only on the ground that the petitioner's husband has not completed
10 years regular services in the work charged and contingency
paid establishment and therefore pension can not be granted vide
impugned order Annexure P/8 dated 7.2.2007. The question with
regard to period of service to be rendered in the work charged and
Contingency Paid Establishment for grant of pension has been
considered by this Court in
Bal Kishan Patel v. State of MP and
others
(WP No.4357/2004) and after taking note the requirement
of the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh (Worked charged
and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and the
Provisionary Rule 2(c) and Rule 4 A of the said Rules the matter is
so decided.

"14. It is apparent that for the purpose of family pension Rule 4-A
of the Pension Rules of 1979 read with Rule 47 of the Rules of
1976 makes it clear that if an Incumbent has rendered not less than

7 years continuous service, family of incumbent is entitled for the
family pension. It is not in dispute that deceased Jabmohan Singh
Gond had rendered the contentious service for more than 7 years.
Rule 6 (3) of the Pension Rules of 1979 clearly provides that
without interruption for not less than 6 years such services shall be
counted for pension as if such services has rendered on regular
post, qualifying service has to be given effect to while considering
the length of the service, as specified in Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of
1979 otherwise the purpose of fiction created of Rule (3) stands
defeated. Thus the submission raised by the respondents that Rule
6(3), services cannot to be computed towards qualifying service,
cannot accepted. The services which has been rendered, as
qualifying service, under Rule of the Pension Rules of 1979 has to
be counted, as rendered on a regular post. Thereafter entitlement
has to be determined by the respondents in accordance with law."
In the case at hand the petitioner's husband was engaged on daily

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

4 WP-96-2019
wage basis in the Work-charged Establishment of Rani Avantibai
Sagar Project. Thereafter, by order dated 26.06.1996 was bought
on regular Work Charged Establishment in grade 825-900-20-
1220 as Time Keeper. The late husband of the petitioner while in
service expired on 12.2.2001. The petitioner after death of her
husband approached the authorities for grant of family pension.
The said request was turned down by letter dated 13.09.2006 on
the ground that petitioner's husband since has not rendered 10
years of service in the Work-charged establishment she was not
entitled for the family pension. It is this denial which has forced
the petitioner to prefer the instant-writ petition.
A "Work-charged employee" is defined under Rule 2 (b) to mean
'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 in connection with such
work, excluding the daily paid labour and musterroll employee
employed on the work.' Whereas, "permanent employee as
defined under clause (c) of Rule 2 of Rules 1979 means "a
contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee has
completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st
January, 1974: Provided that in respect of a contingency paid
employee or a work charged employee who has attained the age of
superannuation on or after the First April 1981, permanent
employee means an employee who has completed 10 years of
service on or after 1st January, 1974. Rule 4A which was inserted
vide notification dated 13.9.1982, pub. in M.P. Rajpatra. Pt. IV
(ga), dated 26.12.1982, page 133; stipulates:

"4A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 4 the family of a
permanent employee who dies while in service or after retirement
on pension on or after the 1st April, 1981 shall be entitled to
family pension at the rate of 30% of his/her pay drawn at the time
of death/retirement subject to minimum of Rs.40/- per month and
maximum of Rs. 100/- per month subject to other conditions of
rule 47 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1976 except sub-rule (3) of the said rule. Admittedly the aforesaid
provisions have an overriding effect over Rule 4 wherein the
stipulations have been laid down as to the minimum qualifying
service which a person engaged on work-charged establishment
should have at his credit, i.e., 10 years, before he is held entitled
for grant of pension on his retirement. In other words the bar as
created under Rule 4, in the considered opinion of this Court will
not be attracted in case a member of a regular Workchared
establishment dies in harness; meaning thereby that even a day's

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

5 WP-96-2019
service rendered by a workman brought on regular work-charged
establishment in case if he dies thereafter would entitle the family
of such workman for a family pension as per stipulations
contained in Section 4A. The only guiding factor while applying
Rule 4A. of Rules of 1979 would be the conditions stipulated in
Rule 47 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1979 Sub-rule (2)
of Rule 47 of the Rules, 1976 stipulates; "(2) Without prejudice to
the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government
servant dies- (a) While in service provided he had been medically
examined and found fit for appointment under the Government.

(b) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in
receipt of a pension or compassionate allowance, referred to in
Chapter V on the date of death, the family of the deceased shall be
entitled to contributory family pension (hereinafter in thisrole
referred to as Family Pension) the amount of which shall be
determined as follows:

Pay servant of Government servant Amount of month family pension

(i) Below Rs.400 30 per cent of pay subject to a
minimum of Rs.60 and maximum of
Rs.100.

(ii) Rs.400 and above but not exceeding 15 per cent of pay subject to a
Rs. 1200. minimum of Rs.100 and maximum of
Rs. 160.

(iii) Above Rs. 1200/- 12 per cent of pay subject to a
minimum of Rs.160 and maximum of
Rs.250.

In the present case also the claim of the petitioner was rejected
only on the ground that the petitioner's husband has not completed
10 years regular service in work charged and contingency paid
Establishment. This could not be done. The petitioner is entitled to
get pension in the head indicated in the aforesaid table even if he
has not completed 10 years service. In this view of the matter
rejection of petitioner's claim by the impugned order is
unsustainable Accordingly the order Annexure P/8 dated 7.2.2007
is quashed, the respondents are directed to fix family pension of
the petitioner within a period of 60 days and pay all arrears to the
petitioner alongwith interest at the rate 6% per annum from the
date of entitlement till payment. The petition stands allowed and is
disposed of with the aforesaid."

7. Similarly, the Division Bench answering a reference made to it on
the said issue in WA No. 1522/2019 has considered as under:-

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

6 WP-96-2019

"13. Now coming to family pension. The issue, in our opinion, has
been duly considered and decided in the case of
Smt. Sampat Bai
vs State of Madhya Pradesh
: Writ Petition No.17240/2012 on
05.02.2013, wherein it is held :

"Question is whether the respondents are justified in
rejecting the claim and whether theproposition of law

laid down in
Mamta Shukla (supra) and the provisions
of M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid
Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 and M. P. Civil
Services (Pension) Rules 1976, supports the rejection
order. And whether rendering 10 years of service in a
work charged establishment will also be condition
precedent for granting of family pension, could be
ascertained after examining the relevant provision of
1979 Rules and that of 76 Rules. Rule 4 A of the Rules
of 1979 and Rule 6 thereof respectively provide for: "4
A. Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 4 the
family of a permanent employee, who dies while in
service or after retirement on pension on or after the 1st
April 1981 shall be entitled to family pension at the rate
of 30% of his/her pay drawn at the time of
death/retirement subject to minimum, of Rs.40/- per
month and maximum of Rs. 100/- per month subject to
other conditions of Rule 47 of Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 except sub-rule (3) of
the said Rules. 6. Commencement of qualifying service

- (1) subject to the provisions of Chapter III of the
Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976
or section IV of the Madhya Pradesh New Pension
Rules, 1951 as the case may be, for calculating
qualifying service of a permanent employee who retires
as such, the service rendered with effect from the 1st
January, 1959 onwards shall be counted. (2) On
absorption of a permanent employee without
interruption against any regular pensionable post, the
service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1959
onward shall be counted for pension as if such service
was rendered in a regular post. (3) On absorption of
temporary employee without interruption against any
regular pensionable post, the service rendered with
effectfrom 1st January, 1974 onwards, if such service is

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

7 WP-96-2019
of less than six years shall be counted for pension as if
such service was rendered in a regular post. When the
aforesaid two Rules are read together, it is clear as
crystal that the provisions which govern the family
pension has a different field of operation than the
provisions regarding pension to an employee who
retires from the workcharged establishment and are
governed by Rule 6 of Rules of 1979. By virtue of Rule
4 A the provisions as contained under Rule 47 of the
M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 are attracted.
The said Rule provides for 47. Contributory Family
Pension - (1) The provisions of this rule shall apply:-

(a) to a Government servant entering service in a
pensionable establishment or on after 1st April 1966,
and (b) to a Government servant who was in service on
31st March, 1966 and came to be governed by the
provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for State
Government Employees, 1966 contained in
Government of Madhya Pradesh Finance Department
memo No.1963/C.R903-IV-R. II dated 17th August,
1966 as in force immediately before the commencement
of these rules. (2) Subject to the provision of sub-rule
(5) and without prejudice to the provisions contained in
sub rule (3), where a government servant dies- (a)
during the period of service he was found medically fit
at the time of appointment. (b) after retirement from
service and was on the date of death in receipt of a
pension or compassionate allowance, referred to in
Chapter V other than the pension referred to in Rule 34,
on the date of death, the family of the deceased shall be
entitled to a contributory family pension (hereinafter in
this rule referred to as Family pension) the amount of
which shall be determined as follows:-

Pay servant of Government Amount of month family
servant pension

(i) Below Rs.400 30 per cent of pay subject to a
minimum of Rs.60 and
maximum of Rs.100.

(ii) Rs.400 and above but not 15 per cent of pay subject to a
exceeding Rs. 1200. minimum of Rs.100 and
maximum of Rs. 160.

(iii) Above Rs. 1200/- 12 per cent of pay subject to a
minimum of Rs.160 and
maximum of Rs.250.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

8 WP-96-2019
A harmonious reading of Rule 4 A of Rules, 1979 and
Rule 47(2) (a) of Rules, 1976 would fresco that if a
person employed in a regular work-charged
establishment dies while in service, his family cannot be
deprived of the pension which it would be entitled for
by virtue of Rule 4 A of Rules, 1979. As to the law laid
down by Full Bench in Mamta Shukla (supra) the issue
before the Full Bench was- "(i) Whether the decision of
the Division Bench in W.A. No. 725/2007,
Smt.
Rahisha Begum vs. State of M.P. and others
is not a
good law in view of the decision of the earlier Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 18- 7-2005, passed
in W.P. No.1273/2000, State of M.P. And others vs.
Ram Singh and another ? (ii) Whether an employee is
eligible for the benefit of family pension in accordance
with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged
and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979
after completing qualifying service in accordance with
the provisions of Recruitment Rules framed by the
concerned Department for work charged and
contingency paid employees or in accordance with the
definition of Rule 2 of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged
and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979
in regard to "contingency paid employee", "work-
charged employee" and permanent employee" ? (iii)
Whether for counting qualifying service of an employee
for the purpose of grant of benefit of pension it is
necessary that the employee has to be appointed in
accordance with the provisions of contingency paid
employees recruitment rules framed by the
concerneddepartment in regard to work charged and
contingency paid employees ?" The reference was
answered in the following terms - 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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

9 WP-96-2019
accordance with the Pension Rules of 1979 and we
answer the substantial questions of law Nos. 2 and 3
accordingly. 25.

In regard to substantial question of law
No. 1 Earlier Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.
1273/2000,
State of M.P. vs. Ramsingh and another
, as
held that a daily wager employee would not fall within
the definition of work charged and contingency paid
employee, hence his case would not be covered by
Madhya Pradesh Work charged and Contingency Paid
Employees Pension Rules, 1979, has not been noticed
by the subsequent Division Bench of this Court in

Rahisha Begum vs. State of M.P. And
other, 2010(4)
MPLJ 332. However, in the subsequent case, the
Division Bench has held that if an employee comes
within the definition of work charged and contingency
paid employee as defined the Pension Rules of 1979,
then he is eligible to count his past service for the
purpose of qualifying service in accordance with the
Rules of 1979. In our opinion, there is no conflict
between the Division Bench judgments, because the
findings of the Division Benches are based on different
factual aspects. Accordingly, we answer the substantial
question of law No. 1 that there is no conflict of opinion
between the two Division Bench judgments.

Hence, the
decision of the Division Bench in the case of
Rahisha
Begum vs. State of M.P. and others
, 2010(4) MPLJ 332,
is not per incuriam. We answer substantial question of
law No. 1 accordingly."

Apparent, it is from the above pronouncement that, the
issue as to grant of family pension to a widow of an
employee of work charged who are apparently covered
by Rule 4A of Rules of 1979 was not the term of
reference and nor was the same dwelt upon by the Full
Bench. In view of above, the respondents are not
justified in denying the family pension to the petitioner
only on the ground that the petitioner's husband did not
complete 10 years of service in Regular Work Charged
Establishment. In view whereof, the impugned order
dated 07.05.2012 is quashed. The respondents are
directed to grant family pension to the petitioner from
the date of entitlement. Petitioner shall also be entitled
for the interest @ 7.5% on the difference till its final
payment."

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

10 WP-96-2019

8. Thus, in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it is clear that
the petitioner's claim for grant of family pension cannot be rejected by the
respondents on the ground that her husband had not completed 10 years of
qualifying service in the Work Charged Establishment.

9. Although the respondents have also raised a ground of delay saying
that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1986, but no claim of
family pension was raised by the petitioner and therefore this petition
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Orissa v. Mamata
Mohanty
, (2011) 3 SCC 436 has held as under:-

"54. This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a
petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case
the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the
relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot
furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot
wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment
in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court
within a reasonable time. (See
Rup Diamonds v. Union of
India
[(1989) 2 SCC 356 :
AIR 1989 SC 674], State of
Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya
[(1996) 6 SCC 267 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 1488] and Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana [(1997) 6 SCC
538 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550 : AIR 1997 SC 2366])"

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Karnataka Power Corpn.
Ltd. v. K. Thangappan
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 has held as follows :

6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in
mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary
powers under
Article 226
of the Constitution. In an appropriate
case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers
if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant
to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time
and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party.

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

11 WP-96-2019
Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within
the discretion of the Court as pointed out in
Durga Prashad v.
Chief Controller of Imports and Exports
(1969) 1 SCC 185. Of
course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and
reasonably.

7. What was stated in this regard by Sir Barnes Peacock in
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Prosper Armstrong Hurd (1874) 5 PC
221 (PC at p. 239) was approved by this Court in
Moon Mills Ltd.
v. M.R. Meher
[
AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Maharashtra SRTC v.
Shri Balwant Regular Motor Service
[AIR 1969 SC 329]. Sir
Barnes had stated:

"Now, the doctrine of laches in courts of equity is not an arbitrary
or a technical doctrine. Where it would be practically unjust to
give a remedy either because the party has, by his conduct done
that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it,
or where by his conduct and neglect he has though perhaps not
waiving that remedy, yet put the other party in a situation in which
it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were
afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time
and delay are most material. But in every case, if an argument
against relief, which otherwise would be just, is founded upon
mere delay, that delay of course not amounting to a bar by any
statute of limitation, the validity of that defence must be tried
upon principles substantially equitable. Two circumstances always
important in such cases are, the length of the delay and the nature
of the acts done during the interval which might affect either party
and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course
or the other, so far as it relates to the remedy.

9.In the case of
Ghulam Rasool Lone vs State of J&K
reported in
(2009) 15 SCC 321 , it is held as follows:

"19. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the remedy under
Article
of the Constitution of India is a discretionary one. For
sufficient or cogent reasons a court may in a given case refuse to
exercise its jurisdiction; delay and laches being one of them. While
considering the question of delay and laches on the part of the
petitioner, the court must also consider the effect thereof."

In view of aforesaid, in the present case, it is found by this Court that
the petitioner has filed this petition at the age of 65 years, and the husband of

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63513

12 WP-96-2019
the petitioner had expired in the year 1986. In Clause 4 of the petition, it is
stated that in the year 2018 notice was sent, which shows that the petitioner
has kept silence for so many years after the death of her husband and got up
from the deep slumber only in the year 2018. However, taking sympathetic
view, looking to the age of the petitioner, as law permits for the family
pension, it is hereby held that the petitioner is entitled for family pension
from the date of order passed by this Court.

10. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed directing
respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner forthwith from the date
of Order passed by this Court. However, it is clarified that the petitioner
shall not claim any arrear of pension from the date of death of her husband.
The aforesaid compliance be made within a period of three months from the
date of production of certified copy of the order.

(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE

nd

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: NIDHI DAVE

Signing time: 11-12-

2025 10:18:14