The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that the past service of a daily wage employee, prior to regularization, must be counted for pension calculation, reinforcing a binding precedent that resolves long-standing ambiguity in state service rules. This judgment ensures parity for thousands of similarly situated workers across government departments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Purshottam Das Sharma, served as a daily wage employee in the State of Madhya Pradesh before being regularized into permanent service. Upon retirement, his pension was calculated solely on the basis of service rendered after regularization, excluding his prior daily wage tenure. He challenged this exclusion, arguing that it violated established judicial precedents granting pensionary benefits for pre-regularization service.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was engaged as a daily wage employee from an unspecified date until his regularization.
- He was regularized into permanent service on an unspecified date, following which he continued service until retirement.
- The State denied inclusion of his pre-regularization service for pension computation, relying on a circular dated 06.01.2013 and the judgment in Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P., 2011 (3) MPLJ 210.
- The petitioner pointed to Annexure P-7, an order dated 24.02.2020, wherein a similarly situated employee of the same department was granted inclusion of pre-regularization service, based on the precedent in Laxmikant Mishra v. State of M.P.
- The petitioner had filed representations seeking inclusion of his prior service, which were rejected without reasoned consideration.
Procedural History
- The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6666 of 2026 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur.
- The petition relied on the decision in Bharosilal v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 1232/2021, which had already granted the same relief.
- The petitioner invoked the binding precedent in Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P., 2010 (4) MPLJ 332, and its reaffirmation in Laxmikant Mishra v. State of M.P., decided on 27.07.2016.
- The State’s challenge to Laxmikant Mishra via SLP(Civil) Diary No. 16700/2018 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 18.05.2018, rendering the Laxmikant Mishra judgment final.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought inclusion of his entire pre-regularization daily wage service in the calculation of pension, along with consequential arrears and interest, and directed the State to apply the same benefits granted to similarly placed employees under Laxmikant Mishra and Rahisha Begum.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prior service of a daily wage employee, prior to regularization, must be counted for the purpose of pension calculation, in light of binding precedents that have settled this issue in favor of such employees.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the issue had been conclusively settled by the Division Bench in Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P., 2010 (4) MPLJ 332, and subsequently reaffirmed in Laxmikant Mishra v. State of M.P. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the State’s SLP in Diary No. 16700/2018 rendered the Laxmikant Mishra judgment final and binding. The petitioner also demonstrated that similarly situated employees had already received the benefit, establishing arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the petitioner was never appointed through formal recruitment and remained a daily wage worker, thus ineligible for pensionary benefits for pre-regularization service. It relied on the circular dated 06.01.2013, which limited pension benefits to those with over 10 years of daily wage service, and on Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P., which held that daily wage service is not qualifying service for pension.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the State’s reliance on Mamta Shukla was misplaced, as that judgment had been expressly distinguished and superseded by the later, binding decisions in Rahisha Begum and Laxmikant Mishra. The Division Bench in Laxmikant Mishra had thoroughly examined the State’s objections and held that daily wage employees are entitled to the benefit of prior service for pension purposes. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP confirmed the finality of this holding.
"It is no more res-integra that a daily wage employee is also entitled for the benefit of counting of his past service at the time of calculation of pension."
The Court emphasized that the State could not selectively apply judicial precedents - granting the benefit to some similarly placed employees while denying it to others. This selective application violated the principle of equal protection under law. The Court further noted that the circular dated 06.01.2013 could not override a binding judicial pronouncement.
The Court held that the Rahisha Begum and Laxmikant Mishra judgments form the governing legal framework and must be applied mutatis mutandis to the petitioner’s case.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The State is directed to count the petitioner’s entire pre-regularization daily wage service for pension calculation, applying the terms and directions laid down in Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P., 2010 (4) MPLJ 332 and Laxmikant Mishra v. State of M.P. The competent authority must examine parity with W.P. No. 1232/2021 and grant the benefit within two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Necessary formalities shall be completed within three months.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prior Daily Wage Service Is Qualifying Service
- Practitioners representing daily wage employees must now cite Rahisha Begum and Laxmikant Mishra as binding precedents in all pension disputes.
- Any denial of pre-regularization service for pension, based solely on employment status, is legally unsustainable.
State Cannot Apply Judgments Selectively
- Government departments cannot grant pension benefits to some employees under judicial orders while denying them to others in identical circumstances.
- Such selective application invites writ jurisdiction and may attract penalties for contempt or violation of Article 14.
Circulars Cannot Override Court Orders
- Administrative circulars, including those issued by the Finance Department, cannot override or dilute judicial holdings on pension entitlement.
- Where a court has laid down a legal principle, departmental guidelines must conform to it - not the reverse.
