IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 20210 of 2023

RADHESHAYAM SHARMA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Alok Bandhu Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Sohit Mishra - Advocate for the respondents/State.

ORDER

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27/3/2023, whereby, his claim for

counting his past services rendered as daily wager for purposes of pension has been rejected by the respondents. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to

the respondents to count his past service as daily wager for purposes of pension.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was

initially engaged on daily wages in Public Works Department at Morena, thereafter, he was regularized on the post of Sthal Sahayak w.e.f. 11/10/1996 which fact is gathered from the copy of service book filed as Annexure P/4. The petitioner thereafter retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation

w.e.f. 30/8/2022.

3. Upon his retirement, the Pension Payment Order (PPO) was issued by

the respondents counting his services for 25 years 10 months 21 days w.e.f. 11/10/1996. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been paid the retiral dues including

the pension and gratuity on the basis of the aforesaid PPO.

4. The petitioner claims that his services rendered as daily wager w.e.f.

18/8/1986 are also required to be counted towards his pensionable service. He raised his claim by making representation before the authorities and when the same was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P. No.1029/2023. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 16/1/2023, thereby, directing the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's claim while considering the directions issued by the Division Bench in the case of Raisa Begum Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.A. No.725/2007). In compliance with the Court order, the impugned order has been passed, whereby, the petitioner's case is not found to be at par with Smt. Raisa Begum (supra) and his claim for counting daily wage services for pension purposes has been rejected. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned action of the respondents on the ground that in various other cases, similar benefit has been granted by this court which has been accepted by the respondents also. He referred to the order passed by this Court in the case of Motiram Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.1795/2007), which was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.47/2010 and was further affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.36143/2010. Learned counsel also relied upon the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raisa Begum (supra) which was approved by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.4671/2012. The petitioner has also relied upon the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Peetamlal Katre Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (W.P. No.17004/2018). He thus, prayed for similar directions.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State refuted the submissions made by petitioner's counsel. He submitted that the services rendered by petitioner as daily wager cannot be counted as pensionable service in view of specific provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It is his submission that Finance Department of State of M.P. has issued circular dated 6/1/2013 (Annexure R/1), whereby, it has been specifically provided that the daily wage services would not be counted towards pensionable service under Rule 6(3) of Madhya Pradesh (Work-Charged & Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short "Rules of 1979"). Learned counsel placed reliance upon the Division Bench decision of this court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Ram Singh and Anr. (W.P. No.1273/2000), whereby, it has been held that the daily wage services rendered by an incumbent would not be counted as the services rende