Daily Wage Service Counts for Pension Regardless of Sanctioned Post | HC

Case Details: Nagpur Municipal Corporation vs. Bhimrao [2026] 184 taxmann.com 640 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Rohit W. Joshi, J.
• J.B. Kasat, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• H.D. Dubey, S.G. Ingole & Syed Sufiyan, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondents were engaged by the petitioner, Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC), as daily-wage/contractual workers between 1991 and 1996 and were subsequently regularised in 2006/2015.

They claimed that their pre-regularisation service should be counted for gratuity and pension, and that the date of completion of 240 days should be treated as the date of entry into service.

The Industrial Court declined retrospective permanency but directed that such a date be considered for the computation of pension and gratuity. The petitioner challenged the said direction.

It was noted that the service rendered as a daily-wage/contractual employee is liable to be counted towards pensionable service, even if not against a sanctioned post.

Further, it was noted that where salary for such period was paid from the contingency fund, only half of such service is to be counted as pensionable service, and if salary was not being paid from the contingency fund, the entire service rendered, as contractual employees, will have to be counted as pensionable service.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the NMC was to be directed to consider case of each complainant/respondent and in cases where total period of service rendered, including service rendered as daily wager, even against an unsanctioned post, was more than pensionable service, to compute amount of pension payable to all complainants who had superannuated from service and to make payment of pension to them as early as possible.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Subhash Sukhdev Sahare v. NMC Writ Petition No. 496 of 2023, dated 22-12-2025 (para 13)
• Purshuram Vithoba Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 587
• Shivappa v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 709
• Waliuddin v. State of Maharashtra W. P. No. 1542 of 2008, dated 25-8-2010
• Syed Afzaluddin Ustad v. State of Maharashtra W. P. No. 815 of 2011, dated 24-8-2011
• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi [2023] 8 taxmann.com 1524 (SC)/2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272
• S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 182 (SC)/2025 SCC OnLine SC 973 (para 34) followed
• Narendra Shaligram Thakre v. Nagpur Municipal Corporation W. P. No. 643 of 1995, dated 22-3-2006 (para 13)
• Sanjay N. Revatkar v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha W. P. No. 1533 of 2011, dated 7-10-2011 (para 31)
• Municipal Council v. Ramesh Haribhauji Wankhede 2024 SCC Online Bom 2127 (para 33) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Subhash Sukhdev Sahare v. NMC [Writ Petition No. 496 of 2023, dated 22-12-2025] (para 8)
• Narendra Shaligram Thakre v. Nagpur Municipal Corporation [W. P. No. 643 of 1995, dated 22-3-2006] (para 12)
• Jagjeevan Jaikumar Sanghai v. Parbhani Municipal Corporation 2018(4) Mh.L.J. 947 (para 14)
• S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India [2025] 181 taxmann.com 182 (SC) (para 14)
• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi [2023] 8 taxmann.com 1524 (SC) (para 14)
• Municipal Council v. Ramesh Haribhauji Wankhede 2024 SCC Online Bom 2127 (para 15)
• Sanjay N. Revatkar v. Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Wardha [W. P. No. 1533 of 2011, dated 7-10-2011] (para 15)
• Purshuram Vithoba Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra 2001 (4) Mh.L.J. 587 (para 16)
• Shivappa v. State of Maharashtra 2005 (3) Mh.L.J. 709 (para 17)
• Waliuddin v. State of Maharashtra [W. P. No. 1542 of 2008, dated 25-8-2010] (para 22)
• Syed Afzaluddin Ustad v. State of Maharashtra [W. P. No. 815 of 2011, dated 24-8-2011] (para 23).