Monthly-Paid ‘Daily Rated’ Service Counts Toward Pension After 15 Years | HC

Case Details: Ram Vishal Pateriya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2025] 179 taxmann.com 29 (HC-Madhya Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Vivek Jain, J.
• M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Sr. Adv., Brindavan Tiwari, Gopal Singh, O.P. Dwivedi, Sachin Pandey, Gajendra S. Thakur, Ms Ankita Khare, Rakesh Singh, Rajesh Kumar Soni, Rahul Mishra, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Aditya Ahiwasi, Bramhanand Pandey, Choudhary Mayank Singh, Ms Sanjana Yadav, Ku. Kanchan Tiwari, Ku. Saloni Kasliwal, Praveen Kumar Verma, Narendra Kumar Sharma, Harish Chand Kohli, Ms Ashi Soni, Suresh Prasad Khare, Jai Shukla, Gaurav Singh Kaurav & Ms Malti Dadariya, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• V.P. Tiwari, Govt. Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, petitioners, initially engaged as Daily Rated Employees and later regularised in State service, sought to reckon the period spent as Daily Rated Employees before regularisation towards pension. They asserted that although described as daily rated, they were paid monthly from contingencies and therefore fell within ‘contingency paid employees’ under Rule 2(a) of the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979.

It was noted that the services rendered as monthly paid Daily rated employee, have to be treated as contingency paid service in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Pension Rules of 1979 and if so, from what point such service is reckonable towards pension in terms of Rule 2(c) read with Rule 6(2) of the Pension Rules of 1979 in backdrop of Rule 7 of the M.P. Irrigation Department (Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1977. This also takes into account the amendment dated 27.02.2023 (corrected on 28.12.2023) to Rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules of 1979.

Further, services rendered by petitioners in excess of 15 years as monthly paid employees, though declared as daily rated employees by the State, shall be reckoned as services for the purpose of calculation of length of service for pension.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that services rendered as monthly paid employee, though named or described as daily rated employee by State, shall be reckoned to be services rendered as contingency paid employees that would convert into “permanent contingency paid employee” in terms of proviso to Rule 2(c) of the Rules, immediately upon completion of 15 years of monthly paid service, only for the purpose of pensionable service.

The High Court held that this period in excess of 15 years shall ensure suitable only for the purpose of calculation of length of service for pension under the Pension Rules of 1979, and in those cases where there was no compliance with Rule 7 of the Recruitment Rules, services shall not be reckoned to be permanent contingency paid services for other purposes like salary, etc.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Dharam Singh v. State of UP [2025] 177 taxmann.com 556 (SC) (para 21)
• Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P (2011) 3 MP LJ 210 (FB) (para 43)
• Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P. (2010) 4 MP LJ 332 (MP) (para 57) distinguished
• Vishnu Mutiya v. State of M.P. [2006] 2005 taxmann.com 2952 (Madhya Pradesh)/(2006) 1 MP LJ 23 (FB) (para 60) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 (para 2)
• Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P. (2010) 4 MP LJ 332 (MP) (para 5)
• Pannalal v. Public Works Department [W.A. No. 827 of 2019, dated 12-3-2025] (para 6)
• Laxmikant Mishra v. State of M.P. [W.P. No. 5133 of 2016, dated 27-7-2016] (para 6)
• Madan Lal Sharma v. State of M.P. [SLP (Civil) No.18981 of 2021, dated 19-12-2024] (para 9)
• Dharam Singh v. State of UP [2025] 177 taxmann.com 556 (SC) (para 9)
• Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P (2011) 3 MP LJ 210 (FB) (para 11)
• Vishnu Mutiya v. State of M.P. [2006] 2005 taxmann.com 2952 (Madhya Pradesh) (para 11)
• Ashok Tiwari v. M.P. Textbook Corporation 2010 (2) MP LJ 662 (FB) (para 14)
• Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 16 SCC 623 (para 44)
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 (para 45)
• Shah Faesal v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 1 (para 46).