A landmark ruling by the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that long-term service under specific state employment rules can confer permanent status, irrespective of initial classification as a daily-rated worker. This decision reinforces the principle that substantive rights accrue through prolonged service, not merely through formal designation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Duryodhan Mahule, was initially engaged in 1984 by the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department as a work-charged employee paid on a daily rate basis. He served continuously for over 30 years without interruption, performing duties integral to departmental operations. Despite his long tenure, the State treated him as a daily-rated employee and issued an order on 18 July 2011 directing his superannuation upon attaining the age of 60.
Procedural History
- 1984: Petitioner appointed as work-charged employee under the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977
- 2011: State issued order directing superannuation at age 60, treating petitioner as daily-rated
- 2012: Writ petition filed challenging the order on grounds of acquired permanent status
- 2026: High Court heard arguments and delivered judgment
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the superannuation order and recognition of his status as a permanent employee, entitling him to superannuation benefits at age 62 under the Rules of 1977.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977 confers permanent status upon completion of 30 years of qualifying service, and whether such status overrides the default superannuation age of 60 applicable to daily-rated employees.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on Rule 7 of the Rules of 1977, which provides that an employee completing 30 years of qualifying service shall be deemed to have acquired permanent status. It was argued that the State had not disputed the petitioner’s continuous service record or the applicability of Rule 7. The petitioner’s designation as "permanent labour (Sthai Shramik)" in Annexure P/1 further corroborated his status. The State’s reliance on Badri v. State of M.P. was contended to be inapplicable, as that case involved different factual circumstances and no claim of 30-year service.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the petitioner was always classified as a daily-rated employee and that no statutory provision allowed extension of service beyond age 60 for such employees. It cited Badri v. State of M.P. as binding precedent, arguing that the petitioner’s claim amounted to an impermissible attempt to alter service conditions retroactively. The State did not file a detailed counter-affidavit refuting the petitioner’s assertion of permanent status under Rule 7.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous textual analysis of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1977, which states: "An employee who has completed thirty years of qualifying service shall be deemed to have acquired permanent status." The Court emphasized that the language is mandatory and unambiguous. The State’s failure to rebut the petitioner’s specific averments in paragraphs 5.2 and 6.4 of the petition, which detailed his 30-year service and entitlement under Rule 7, was fatal to its case.
"The specific assertions... regarding acquiring permanent status by virtue of Rules of 1977 have also not been controverted by the respondent in the return. Therefore, apparently, the claim of the petitioner has been declined under a misconception."
The Court distinguished Badri v. State of M.P., noting that in that case, the employee had not claimed or established 30 years of qualifying service under Rule 7. Here, the record was clear: the petitioner had completed 30 years, and the State had not denied it. The Court further held that the designation "permanent labour" in official records was not merely descriptive but indicative of legal status conferred by Rule 7. The State’s reliance on age-based superannuation norms for daily-rated employees could not override a statutory right acquired through service.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that completion of 30 years of qualifying service under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1977 confers permanent status, irrespective of initial classification. The impugned superannuation order was quashed, and the State was directed to treat the petitioner as superannuated at age 62 with all consequential benefits.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Permanent Status Is Not Merely a Formality
- Practitioners must now argue that continuous 30-year service under qualifying rules automatically triggers permanent status, even if the employee was initially hired on a daily or work-charged basis
- Any denial of permanent status without rebutting service records constitutes a violation of statutory rights
- Designations like "Sthai Shramik" in official records may serve as prima facie evidence of permanent status
State’s Silence Is Fatal in Service Matters
- In writ petitions challenging service orders, failure to specifically deny factual assertions in the petition amounts to acceptance under established principles of natural justice
- Respondents must file detailed affidavits contesting service history claims - general denials are insufficient
- This judgment reinforces the doctrine that procedural fairness requires substantive rebuttal in service law disputes
Superannuation Age Cannot Override Statutory Entitlement
- The default superannuation age of 60 for daily-rated employees does not apply to those who have acquired permanent status under specific rules
- Courts will prioritize statutory rights accrued through service over administrative convenience or blanket age norms
- This precedent applies to all state departments governed by similar service rules, including irrigation, public works, and municipal bodies
