IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT

th

ON THE 5 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 96 of 2019 SMT. KALA BAI VISHWAKARMA Versus M.P. MADHYA KSHETRA VIDYUT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Anmol Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Akashmi Trivedi, Proxy Counsel on behalf of Ms. Richa Parasher - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India for following relief:-

*** -

अत माननीय(cid:8)यायमिू त(cid:11) महोदय से िनवेदन ह(cid:18) क(cid:20) (cid:21)ितयािचकाकता(cid:11) को

िनद(cid:23)िशत tiकया जावे क(cid:20) याािचकाकता(cid:11) प(cid:28)रवा(cid:28)रक पे(cid:8)शन का िनधार(cid:11) ण कर पे(cid:8)शन का भगु तान अदा tiकये जाने के आदेश व िनद(cid:23)श (cid:21)दान tiकये जावे जो (cid:8)यायोिचत होगा। अ(cid:8)य सहायता एवं (cid:39)यय जो माननीय (cid:8)यायालय उिचत **

समझे (cid:21)दान करे।

Counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition is raising a grievance that petitioner’s husband has died in harness in the year 1986, but after his death, the claim of family pension of the present petitioner has been rejected by the respondents on the ground that petitioner’s husband did not qualify the requisite period of service so as to claim pension and, therefore, the family pension cannot be granted to the present petitioner.

2. Pleadings are complete, therefore, looking to the issue involved in the case and as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue has already been settled, this petition is finally heard.

3. By this petition, the petitioner is claiming family pension due to the death of her husband, who was working in the respondent department as a work charged & contingency paid employee and after his death, which occurred on 25.09.1986, no family pension has been granted to the petitioner.

4. As per the facts of the case, the husband of the petitioner was a daily wager appointed in the year 1975 and he was paid wages from the Work Charged and Contingency Paid establishment; he was regularized in the Work Charged Establishment vide order dated 30.11.1983 and thereafter he died on 25.09.1986, and as such he had rendered approx. 11 years of services in the Work Charged Establishment as a regular employee.

5. As per the reply submitted by the respondents, since the petitioner’s husband did not complete the qualifying service as per Rule 4(a) of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short ‘Pension Rules, 1979’) he was not eligible for pension. As per Rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules, 1979, the qualifying service of 10 years was not completed by the husband of the petitioner and, therefore, the claim of family pension of the petitioner was rejected.

6. The issue involved in the present case has already been settled. The Writ Court in WP No. 13653/2009 - Smt. Ram Bai Rajak vs. State of M.P.

and others dealing with the same issue has observed as under:-

“The petitioner is wife of late Shri Anandilal Rajak who was working in the respondents department. Late Shri Anandilal Rajak was initially appointed as a daily wages employee on 1.3.1978. He was posted as Chowkidar and subsequently he was regularized on the work charged and contingency paid employee in the establishment on 10.6.1996/18.6.1996 vide Annexures P/2 and P/3 respectively. After working for a period about 9 years work charged and in contingency paid establishment the petitioner's husband late Shri Anandilal Rajak died on 20.02.2005. After his death the petitioner claimed pension and other benefits in accordance to the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and the Madhya Pradesh (Worked charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979. The claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension and other benefits have been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner's husband has not completed 10 years regular services in the work charged and conti