Contractual service is countable towards pension upon regularization only if the employee exercises the mandatory option under Rule 16 of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, within the prescribed time; otherwise, they are deemed to have opted to retain monetary benefits.

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to include the period of six years and five months of his contractual service as qualifying service towards pension and other post retiral claims with all consequential benefits.

The facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that the petitioner was initially engaged as a Lab. Assistant in connection with the emergency situation arose because of Bhopal Gas Disaster. He was made to work under the Chief Municipal & Health Officer (Gas Rahat), Bhopal. A seniority list published by the office of the Chief Municipal & Health Officer (Gas Rahat), Bhopal on 12.10.1993 reflects the petitioner’s name at Serial No.35, showing his date of initial appointment as 24.03.1988.

The persons engaged on contractual basis in connection with the Bhopal Gas Disaster, including the petitioner, were subsequently declared surplus. Consequently, the State Government took a policy decision to absorb such surplus employees against suitable posts in various departments of the State. This is evident from the copy of circular dated 29.03.1993 (Annexure P/3), whereby the General Administration Department, issued instructions to all departments to take steps for absorption of such surplus employees against available vacancies. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was absorbed on the post of Gram Sahayak in the regular pay scale of Rs.1150-1800 in the Panchayat & Social Service Department, Bhopal. A perusal of the appointment order shows that the appointment was made with effect from the date of joining and was on probation for two years. The petitioner joined the said post accordingly and was thereafter posted at Development Block Porsa, District Morena vide order dated 06.09.1994.

The petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Panchayat Coordination Officer, and he ultimately retired from the said post on 30.04.2021. Upon his retirement, the petitioner's Pension Payment Order (PPO) was prepared, wherein the service rendered by him from 25.08.1994 to 30.04.2021 i.e. for 26 years, 8 months, and 6 days, was taken into consideration for settlement of his retiral dues. The petitioner, therefore, became aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not including the his contractual service of six years and five months i.e. from 24.03.1988 to 24.08.1994, for purposes of settlement of his retiral dues. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had worked continuously on the post of Lab. Attendant, though initially on contract basis, and was thereafter absorbed on a regular post without any break in service. It was contended by him that in view of Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (in short 'Pension Rules'), the petitioner is entitled to have his contractual service counted towards qualifying service for pension. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash & others Vs. Union of India & others, reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 973. Learned counsel further submitted that both the contractual service and the subsequent regular service were rendered under the State Government, and therefore, he is entitled to get the benefit of his entire service rendered from 24.03.1988. It was also argued by him that due to non-counting of his earlier service, the petitioner is suffering substantial financial loss every month.

Reliance was also placed by counsel for petitioner upon Rule 12(2) of the Pension Rules, which provides that service rendered in a substantive, officiating or temporary capacity shall be counted towards qualifying service of a Government servant. He further submitted that the provision relating to pension etc. needs to be liberally construed in favour of the employee. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court