The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that service rendered as a daily wager cannot be counted toward qualifying service for pension under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, even after subsequent regularization. This ruling clarifies a long-standing ambiguity in state pension administration and reinforces the statutory exclusion of casual employment from pensionable service.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Hargovind Pathak, sought inclusion of his period of service as a daily wager employee in the Department of Water Resources for the purpose of computing his pensionary benefits. He was engaged as a daily wager on 23.03.1982 and served in that capacity until 19.09.1991, after which his services were regularized as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the regular establishment of the department. Upon retirement, his pension was calculated based only on service from 19.09.1991 onwards, excluding the nearly nine years of daily wage employment. The State rejected his representation dated 13.01.2021, holding that daily wager service is not eligible for inclusion under the applicable pension rules.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was engaged as a daily wager on 23.03.1982 in the Department of Water Resources
- He was regularized as LDC with effect from 19.09.1991 pursuant to official orders
- He retired on superannuation on 31.03.2019
- His pension was calculated based on service from 19.09.1991 to 31.03.2019
- The petitioner submitted representations on 10.08.2019 and 05.11.2020, both of which were rejected
- The impugned order rejecting his claim was passed on 13.01.2021
- The petitioner relied on a 2020 order in W.P. No. 13916/2020 (Annexure P/2) and a 2017 order in Gaurishankar Pandey v. State of M.P. (Annexure P/5) as precedents
Procedural History
- 13.01.2021: Order passed by Respondent No. 3 rejecting petitioner’s claim for inclusion of daily wager service in pension calculation
- 10.08.2019: First representation made by petitioner to the department
- 05.11.2020: Second representation filed, rejected on 13.01.2021
- 22.07.2022: Writ Petition No. 5294 of 2022 filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
- 12.05.2026: Judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Amit Seth
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 13.01.2021
- Inclusion of daily wager service from 23.03.1982 to 19.09.1991 as qualifying service for pension
- Revision of pension and payment of arrears
- Payment of interest on arrears
- Recall of the impugned order and redetermination of benefits in accordance with rules
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that since his services were regularized, the prior daily wage service should be counted for pension purposes. Relied on two prior High Court orders, including Gaurishankar Pandey, which had allowed such inclusion.
For the Respondent: Contended that Rule 2(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, explicitly excludes daily rated employment from the purview of the Rules. The petitioner’s initial engagement was not made under any formal recruitment process, and counting such service would amount to judicial regularization.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought inclusion of daily wage service from 23.03.1982 to 19.09.1991 as qualifying service for pension, revision of pension arrears, payment of interest, and quashing of the order dated 13.01.2021.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether service rendered as a daily wager, even if subsequently regularized, qualifies as "qualifying service" under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, given the express exclusion of daily rated employment under Rule 2(ii).
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on two prior judgments: W.P. No. 13916/2020 (Annexure P/2), where the Court directed inclusion of daily wage service, and Gaurishankar Pandey v. State of M.P. (Annexure P/5), decided on 04.10.2017, which held that daily wage service should be counted if regularization occurred. It was argued that since the petitioner was regularized, equity and fairness demanded that his prior service be recognized. The counsel contended that the exclusion under Rule 2(ii) was intended for purely temporary or casual engagements, not those later absorbed into the regular establishment.
For the Respondent
The State countered that Rule 2(ii) of the 1976 Rules explicitly excludes persons in "casual and daily rated employment" from the application of the pension rules. Rule 13(2) further defines "service" as service against a post paid from the Consolidated Fund of the State, which daily wage positions are not. The State emphasized that the petitioner’s initial engagement lacked any formal recruitment process under statutory rules, and therefore could not be deemed "pensionable service". The State also pointed out that the Gaurishankar Pandey judgment had been stayed by the High Court on 28.07.2023, rendering it non-precedential.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual analysis of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. It observed that Rule 2(ii) clearly excludes daily rated employment from the scope of the Rules. Rule 13(2) defines qualifying service as service against a post under the Government paid from the Consolidated Fund, which daily wage positions are not. The Court held that the exclusion in Rule 2(ii) is not merely procedural but substantive, and applies regardless of subsequent regularization.
"Once the Pension Rules of 1976 itself are not applicable on the persons in casual and daily rated employment, the period spent by the petitioner as a daily rated employee cannot be counted towards qualifying services for the purposes of grant of pension under the Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976."
The Court further relied on the Full Bench decision in Ashok Tiwari v. M.P. Textbook Corporation, which held that daily wage employees have no service conditions and their appointments are day-to-day, not against any post. The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Gaurishankar Pandey, noting that the judgment had been stayed and failed to consider Rule 2(ii). The Court also noted the absence of any evidence that the petitioner’s initial engagement followed due process under recruitment rules, and held that allowing inclusion would effectively amount to judicial regularization of a non-pensionable position.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the order dated 13.01.2021 rejecting the petitioner’s claim. The period of daily wage service from 23.03.1982 to 19.09.1991 shall not be counted as qualifying service for pension under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. No arrears, interest, or revision of pension is directed. All pending applications are closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Daily Wager Service Is Statutorily Excluded
- Practitioners must advise clients that even if daily wage service is later regularized, it cannot be counted for pension under the MP Pension Rules, 1976
- Any claim based on equity or fairness must yield to the express statutory exclusion under Rule 2(ii)
- Representation to the department must be framed with strict reference to the Rules, not general principles of justice
Regularization Does Not Alter Pension Eligibility
- Regularization of service does not retroactively convert non-pensionable service into pensionable service
- The nature of initial appointment governs eligibility, not subsequent status
- Petitioners must demonstrate that their initial engagement was under a pensionable post, not merely that they were later absorbed
Precedents Must Be Current and Unstayed
- Reliance on judgments that have been stayed or are under appeal is legally untenable
- Courts will not follow precedents that ignore the express language of statutory rules
- Practitioners must verify the current status of cited judgments before relying on them in pleadings
