Aayush Vibhag Through Its Secretary vs Mukesh Yadav

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29700
1 WA-3713-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALPESH Y. KOGJE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
nd
ON THE 22 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3713 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020408342026
AAYUSH VIBHAG THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Versus
MUKESH YADAV
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Garg - Government Advocate for appellants/State.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Alpesh Y. Kogje, Chief Justice
This intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh
Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has
been filed by the appellants-State/employer challenging an order dated
11.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.5601/2026
whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent herein, has
been allowed by holding that the entire services rendered by the writ
petitioner w.e.f. April, 1987 are to be counted for the purpose of pension.
2. The case of the appellants is that the writ petitioner/respondent herein
was initially engaged as an Office Assistant (Muster Employee) in Madhya
Pradesh Forest Department in April, 1987. He was regularised as a Forest
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:50:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29700
2 WA-3713-2026
Guard on 31.03.1999 and therefore, the period between April, 1987 till his

regularization as Forest Guard on 31.03.1999, being a service not as a regular
employee, cannot be treated for the purpose of pensionary benefits and other
retiral benefits. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has
erred in applying the Rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for short "the Rules") as
the department on an application by the petitioner had taken into
consideration all the relevant factors including the decision of this Court in
W.P. No.15775/2019 (Virendra Kumar Mishra vs. State of M.P.), parity with
which, the petitioner had tried to draw. However, the distinguishing factor
being that the petitioner in W.P. No.15775/2019 was a Coupe Guard and was
appointed against a sanctioned post and therefore, the services rendered by
him against a sanctioned post cannot be equated with the services rendered
by a person not working against a sanctioned post. It is argued that the
service period rendered prior to regularization cannot be automatically
treated as a regular service for the purpose of retiral benefits as there has to
be a process to be followed and an order on the basis of entitlement only
after that the service could be regularised.
3. Before the writ Court attention on behalf of the petitioner was drawn to
Rule 6 of the Rules, which specifically provides for commencement of
qualifying service and calculation thereon. It was contended that it is an
admitted fact that after being appointed in the year 1987 as an Office
Assistant, the petitioner has continuously served till the date of his retirement
and therefore, his service period till his regularization is also required to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:50:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29700
3 WA-3713-2026
treated as a regular service.

4. The Court has taken into consideration the undisputed facts that the
petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant (Muster Employee) in
Madhya Pradesh Forest Department in the year 1987 and was regularised
after a period of 12 years in service as a Forest Guard on 31.03.1999. He
retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2025 and therefore,
the issue that crops up is as to whether the period between 1987 till he was
regularised in the year 1999 is required to be treated as regular service for the
purpose of pensionary benefits or not. In this regard, the petitioner had made
an application upon his retirement on 04.12.2025. However, the competent
authority vide order dated 10.12.2025 rejected such claim. This was the
subject matter of challenge before the learned Single Judge.
5. The Court has taken into consideration the impugned order where the
Court has considered Rule 6 of the Rules wherein sub-rule (2) clearly
provides that on absorption of a permanent employee without interruption
against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered shall be counted
for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post. Rule 6(2) of the
Rules specifies the date giving effect to the sub-rule i.e. the service rendered
with effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards. Admittedly, the appointment of
the petitioner was in April, 1987 and hence, covered by Rule 6(2) of the
Rules thereby making the petitioner eligible for his service period from 1987
to 1999 as a regular service for the purpose of pensionary benefit.
6. The Supreme Court in such facts and circumstances in its recent
decision in the case of Bhikhani Devi and etc. vs. Union of India and others
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:50:22

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:29700
4 WA-3713-2026
rendered in Civil Appeal No. 008354-008356 of 2026 (arising out of SLP

(C) Nos.28802-28804 of 2019) decided on 01.06.2026 relying upon its
earlier decisions has held in paras 37 and 38 as under:-

"37. In this context, the principle laid down by this Court in
Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 7
SCC 113 also assumes significance, wherein this Court held that
where an employee has rendered long years of service and there is
no justifiable reason for not conferring permanent status, it would
be a travesty of justice to deny pensionary benefits merely on the
ground of absence of formal regularization, and such an employee
is liable to be treated as having attained permanent status.

38. Perusal of the above decisions of this Court establish a
consistent judicial approach that long-serving employees, whether
casual or temporary, particularly those who have been conferred a
recognised status and extended benefits akin to regular employees,
cannot be denied corresponding benefits including social security
and pensionary benefits. The emphasis must be on ensuring that
the State does not retain such employees in a precarious condition
while extracting services identical to those performed by regular
employees."
7. In view of the aforesaid, no case for interference is made out.
Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ALPESH Y. KOGJE)
(VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE
JUDGE
S/

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SACHIN
CHAUDHARY
Signing time: 24-10-2026
12:50:22