Services rendered in the temporary capacity, including those as a daily wager employee, are to be counted for qualifying service under rule 12(2) of M.P. civil service pension rule 1976 for the purpose of pension and other retiral dues.

O R D E R

Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, a retired Wireman, seeking the following reliefs:-

“A. Petition may kindly be allowed by issuing appropriate writ order or direction by directing the respondent department to grant pensionary benefit (including pension, gratuity, earned leaves etc.), after calculating qualifying service of petitioner from 11.09.1986 and consequential benefits there from including arrears.

B Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be awarded along with the cost of the present petition.”

3] The grievance of the petitioner is that although he is getting a pension, but his services rendered as daily wager employee for 37 years in PHE have not been counted for the purposes of quantum of pension.

4] In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Wireman on 11.09.1986, and was subsequently regularized on 06.10.2003 as per Circular of the Government in the pay scale of Rs.2610-60-3160- 65-3540, and after attaining the age of superannuation, he retired at the age of 62 years on 31.03.2023 and is getting pension @ Rs.7,750/- per month. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was a Class IV employee and has put in a total of 37 years in PHE from 1986 to 2023, however, he is not being paid the pension while counting his 17 years, which were spent by him as daily wager employee.

5] Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurishankar Pandey Vs.

Signature Not Verified State of M.P. and others passed in W.P. No.16652 of 2016 dated

04.10.2017.

6] Counsel for the petitioner has thus, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed.

7] A reply to the petition has also been filed by the State and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner’s services rendered as a daily wager employee cannot be considered for the purposes of quantum of pension as has already been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur and another Vs. State of Bihar and others reported as AIR 2023 SC 2971 wherein the Supreme Court has clearly observed as under:-

“6. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

6.1. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

6.2. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants that their entire services rendered as work charged should be considered and/or counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. If the same is accepted , in that case, it would tantamount to regularizing their services from the initial appointment as work charged. As per the catena of decisions of this Court, there is always a difference and distinction between a regular employee appointed on a substantive post and a work charged employee working under work charged establishment. The work charged employees are not appointed on a substantive post. They are not appointed after due process of selection and as per the recruitment rules. Therefore, the services rendered as work charged cannot be counted for the purpose of pension / quantum of pension. However, at the same time, after rendering of service as work charged for number of years and thereafter when their services have been regularized, they cannot be denied the pension on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service for pension. That is why, the service rendered as work charged is to be counted and/or considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pension, which is provided under Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013.

6.3. xxxxxxxxxx”

8] Thus, it is submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed.

9] Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and perusal of the Signature Not Verified record as also the aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Gaurishankar Pandey (supra) and also by the Supreme Court in the case of Uday Pratap Thakur and another (supra), this Court finds that in t