ORDER

Rusia, J. 1. Since the controversies in these writ appeals are identical in nature, therefore, with the joint request of the parties, these appeals are analogously heard and being decided by this common order. The appellants / writ petitioners have filed the present Writ Appeals under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the common order dated 6.8.2018 passed by the Writ Court, whereby all the writ petitions have been dismissed by denying the benefit of pension to the petitioners therein.

2. All the writ petitioners were appointed on the post of Gangman in the M.P. Public Works Department. After attaining the age of superannuation, they retired from the service from the post of Gangman. The date of appointment, date of retirement and period of service are as under :--

3. The writ petitioners approached the Writ Court claiming pension under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (in short 'the Pension Rules of 1979') on the ground that under the definition of Rule 2(C), they had acquired the status of “permanent employee” after completion of 15 years of service. The Writ Court has dismissed all the writ petitions by placing reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Shukla (Smt.) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2011 (3) M.P.L.J. 210 . Hence, these writ appeals are filed before the Division Bench. Since there is a delay in filing these writ appeals, therefore, separate application has been filed seeking condonation of delay.

4. After notice, the State of M.P. has not filed the reply to oppose the application for condonation of delay. All these appellants are retired employees and not getting pension from the State, therefore, they could not preferred writ appeals within time. Keeping in view the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, we hereby condone the delay.

5. Heard Finally.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants / writ petitioners submits that the learned Writ Court has wrongly placed reliance upon judgment delivered in the case of Mamta Shukla (supra), because the said case was related to the Driver whereas the petitioners were appointed to the post of Gangman. In the said writ petition, the husband of Mamta Shukla was working as Driver, who was appointed as daily wager and later on regularized in the service. The Full Bench while hearing the case of Mamta Shukla did not consider the earlier judgment delivered by the Full Bench in the case of Vishnu Mutiya & Others v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others reported in 2006 (1) M.P.L.J. 23 , in which Gangman has been held as the permanent employee under provisions of The Madhya Pradesh Work Charged & Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976 and entitled to continue in the service up to age of 62 years, therefore, the Pension Rules, 1979 applies to them. Since the Full Bench did not consider the judgment delivered in the case of Vishnu Mutia (supra),while hearing the case of Mamta Shukla, therefore, it cannot be said to be a good law and has wrongly been applied in the present case.

5.1. It is further submitted that one Madanlal Sharma was appointed as Mason in the year 1974 and classified as permanent employee by the Labour Court which was challenged up to this High Court and the same was affirmed. Thereafter, he approached the Writ Court by way of W.P. No.8950 of 2012 and vide order dated 11.8.2016, the writ petition was allowed directing to extend the benefit of pension by placing reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh v/s Ramchandra Singh reported in 2013 SCC OnLine MP 6012. Thereafter, the State filed W.A. No.1444 of 2018 before the Division Bench. Vide order dated 20.9.2019, the writ appeal was allowed, in which the order of Writ Court was set aside. There