1. Question involved in this petition is as to whether under Rule 42 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1976"), period spent by the employee in the work-charged establishment can be counted as qualifying service.

2. The husband of the petitioner Shri Fazal Khan was initially appointed as Helper in the Public Health Engineering Department, Division Gwalior, on daily wages. Thereafter, his services were regularised under the work-charged contingency as per the recommendation of the Selection Committee and fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 750-945/- vide order dated 16.4.1991 (Annexure P-1). During the period of employment, the husband of the petitioner died on 10.11.1999. After his death, the petitioner being his wife, applied for pensionary benefits on the ground that her husband Shri Fazal Khan had worked for more than 18 years and as per the Rules of 1976, she was entitled for pensionary benefits.

3. Per contra, the respondents denied the benefits of the pension to the petitioner on the ground that the husband of the petitioner was appointed as Daily Wager in the year 1981 and later-on as per policy of the State Government, his services were regularised vide order dated 16.4.1991 on work-charged Contingency and thereafter during the period of employment, he died on 10.11.1999 and his total period of service was actually 8 years and 7 months and pensionary benefits can be extended to the employees, who have completed 10 years of qualifying service as per Rule 43 of the Rules of 1976. It is also averred that the provisions of Rules of 1976 will not be applicable in the case of work-charged employees and as such, the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner as a daily rated employee, is not countable towards grant of pension. It is also averred that the minimum qualifying service as per Rule 43 of the Rules of 1976 for grant of pension is 10 years.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shrikrishna Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others, reported in [2004 (1) MPWN 115 = 2003 (4) MPLJ 376], wherein it has been held that an employee, who had initially appointed on contingency was eligible to be regularised on the post on completion of five years as a contingency paid employee and later-on retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Then for the purpose of pension, his period of service shall be counted immediately after five years of service from the date of initial appointment onwards till the date of his retirement.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate drew my attention to the Division Bench decision in the case of State of M.P. v. Ram Singh and another passed in WP No. 1273/00 decided on 18.7.2005, in which the employee was engaged as daily wager by the State on 6.3.1948, he continued to serve on daily wages and was discontinued vide order dated 31.4.1996 on attaining the age of 58 years. The Division Bench of this Court has held that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that employee has been appointed on a work-charged or as contingency paid employee and, therefore, he will not fall in the definition of work-charged or contingency paid employee and his case will not be covered by The M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. In the instant case, the husband of the petitioner was appointed as daily wages Helper on 1.4.1981 and thereafter his services were regularised in the year 1991 in the work-charged establishment.

Rule 2 (b) and (c) of The M.P. (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 reads as under:

(b) "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 in connection with such