S.K. Gangele, J.

1. On a reference by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble the Chief Justice has constituted this Full Bench to answer the following reference:

(i) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 725/2007 Smt. Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P. and Ors. 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 Ors. v. Ram Singh and Anr.?

(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 concerned department in regard to work charged and contingency paid employees?

2. Before answering the reference, it would be appropriate to consider the facts which have resulted in making the present reference. Petitioner Mamta Shukla filed a petition before this Court in regard to grant of family pension on the basis of 19 years' qualifying service rendered by her husband late Rajkumar Shukla. The husband of the Petitioner was engaged in the year 1981 on daily wages basis. He was regularized vide order dated 31/12/1996 on the post of Helper in work charged and contingency paid establishment in the pay-scale of Rs. 870-15-945. He was missing, hence a report of Gumsudgi was lodged at police station Kotwali on 02/04/2000. Thereafter, the Petitioner instituted a suit for declaration that the husband of the Petitioner be declared dead as 'civil death' with effect from 02/04/2000. The trial Court vide order dated 01st February, 2008 decreed the suit and declared the civil death of husband of the Petitioner with effect from 02/04/2000.

3. The Petitioner submitted an application for grant of family pension, that was turned down by the department. Hence, she filed a petition before the High Court claiming family pension on account of civil death of her husband in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh (Work-Charged Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Pension Rules of 1979'). She further claimed that she is entitled to receive pension after counting the total years of service of her husband i.e. 19 years from the date of his initial engagement upto the date of declaration of his civil death i.e. 02/04/2000.

4. The Respondents/State controverted the facts in regard to entitlement of the Petitioner to receive pension in accordance with the Pension Rules, 1979 on the ground that husband of the Petitioner was engaged initially in the year 1981 on daily wages basis and subsequently he was regularized on the post of un-skilled Helper in work-charged and contingency paid establishment with effect from 31 /12/1996, hence, he had not completed six years of qualifying service for the purpose of grant of family pension in accordance with the Pension Rules, 1979. The Respondents further pleaded that earlier period of the husband of the Petitioner from the date of initial engagement as daily wager upto the date of his regularization i.e. 31/12/1996, could not be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension, because the husband of the Petitioner was a daily wager employee.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner at the time of argument contended that in accordance with the definition of