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. 22606 of 2021 RAMKUMAR SONDHIYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

WITH WRIT PETITION No. 22603 of 2021 MANGAL PRASAD SONDHIYA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 23634 of 2021 SAFIQUE MOHAMMAD Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ravinandan Dwivedi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

WRIT PETITION No. 14862 of 2025 NATTHULAL GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Aryaditya Singh - Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

ORDER Regard being had to similitude of the facts of all the cases, they are heard analogously and being decided by a common order. For the sake of convenience, WP No.22606/2021 is taken as lead case and facts are taken therefrom.

2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :

"(i) That, it is therefore, prayed that Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned Clause 10 of order dated 18.04.2013 (Annexure P/1) and further may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents/competent authority to grant the pension as per Rule 6(3) of the M.P. Work Charged and contingency paid employees Pension Rules 1979 and prepared the pension case and also pay the gratuity amount accordingly with 12%

interest, in the interest of justice.

(ii) Any other relief deems fit may also be granted including cost of litigation."

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been employed under the Work Charged Contingency Establishment w.e.f. 01.01.1981, as it is reflected from the order dated 18.04.2013 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner’s services have been regularized under the Rules of Work-Charged and Contingency Paid Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2012. It is submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the condition No.10 of the appointment by which it has been mentioned that the petitioner would not be entitled for pension under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short 'the Rules of 1972') and the petitioner would be treated as member of the Contributory Pension Scheme of

2005.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 6(3) of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short 'the Rules of 1979'), the petitioner was entitled for pension even without regularization because the petitioner has earned the status of permanent employee as per Rule 2(c) of the said Rules which provides that the employee of Work Charged Contingency Establishment on completion of 10 years of service attains the status of a permanent employee automatically and becomes entitled for pension. Thus, it is prayed that such condition is de hors the Rules of 1979 and unconstitutional, deserves to be quashed by granting relief to the petitioner of pension under the Rules of 1979.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that as the petitioner has been regularized in the year 2013, his services would be counted from the date of regularization. Petitioner in W.P.No.22606/2021 stood retired w.e.f. 30.04.2020, in W.P.No.22603/2021 w.e.f. 31.07.2020, in W.P.No.23634/2021 w.e.f. 29.10.2020 and in W.P.No.14862/2025 w.e.f. 31.07.2022 and as the petitioners have not completed the qualifying service of 10 years, the petitioners are not entitled for pension. It is further submitted that in the regularization lett