Hiralal Vyas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Throgh Principal Secretary Commercial Tax Department
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30119
1 WP-44528-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
th
ON THE 27 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 44528 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020427212026
HIRALAL VYAS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pawan Kumar Joshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Praneesha Nayyar - Panel Lawyer for the State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs :
"1. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents
to consider and decide the petitioner's detailed representation dated
24.08.2026, filed as Annexure P/13, by passing a reasoned and speaking order
within a time-bound period.
2. Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for counting his
continuous service commencing from 14.03.1980 as qualifying service for
pensionary purposes in accordance with Rule 6 of the M.P. (Work Charged and
Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979.
3. Direct the respondents to examine the service rendered from 14.03.1980 to
06.04.2006 and not exclude the same merely on the ground that regular pay
scale/regularisation was granted from 07.04.2006, unless such exclusion is
specifically justified under the applicable statutory pension rules.
4. Upon acceptance of the petitioner's claim, direct the respondents to re-
compute his pension, gratuity, commutation, dearness relief and all other
consequential retiral benefits.
5. Direct the respondents to issue a revised PPO and release all consequential
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/27/2026
6:49:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30119
2 WP-44528-2026
arrears to the petitioner along with interest as may be permissible in law.
6. In the alternative, if the petitioner's claim is rejected, direct the respondents
to pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order specifically disclosing the
statutory provision under which the period from 14.03.1980 to 06.04.2006 is
excluded.
7. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice."
02. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the
post of Hammal vide order dated 14.03.1980. Since his appointment on the
said date, the petitioner has continuously discharged his duties in the
Commercial Tax Department without any interruption or break. The services
of the petitioner were directed to be accommodated on the post of Peon vide
order dated 19.12.2000 in contingency-paid establishment. Ultimately, the
order was passed on 11.01.2001, whereby the petitioner was appointed as a
contingency-paid Peon and was posted in the office of Commercial Tax,
Indore, Circle-3. The petitioner continued to discharge his duties on the said
post. Thereafter, the petitioner was then given regular appointment vide order
dated 07.04.2006 on the post of Farrash. The petitioner attained the age of
superannuation on 29.02.2024 and thus, stood retired on the said date. After
retirement of the petitioner, the respondents did not count his services for
calculating his retiral dues including the pension from the date of his initial
appointment on 14.03.1980, consequently, the petitioner submitted a detailed
representation on 24.08.2026.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the issue has
already been decided by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs.
State of M.P. and Others vide order dated 10.08.2023 passed in W.P.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/27/2026
6:49:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30119
3 WP-44528-2026
No.12237/2019 [Annexure P/13]. He further submits that in view of the law
laid down by this Court, the services of the petitioner from his initial date of
appointment which was to be counted for the purposes of qualifying service
for calculation of his retiral dues.
04. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that initial
appointment of the petitioner was on the post of Hammal without following
the due process of law and he was subsequently placed in contingency-paid
establishment against the post of Peon. Ultimately, in the year 2006, the
petitioner was given regular employment. Accordingly, the authority has
correctly counted his services from the year of 2006. Thus, no indulgence in
reply to be shown.
05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
06. Considering that the petitioner has already submitted a detailed
representation on 24.08.2026, this Court, without entering into the merits of
the issue, deems it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with the
following directions:—
"i. Respondent No.2 shall consider the representation of the
petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
ii. While considering the representation of the petitioner,
respondent No. 2 shall also take into account the law laid down by
this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra).
iii. If the petitioner is found entitled for the benefits by
counting his services from the date of his initial appointment in
the year 1979, then consequential benefits be paid to him within an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/27/2026
6:49:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30119
4 WP-44528-2026
outer limit of three months from the date of communication of this
order and if the authority concludes otherwise, then reasons be
assigned by passing a speaking order within the said period of
three months."
07. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off. However,
without expressing anything on merits of the case.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Shilpa
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHILPA
NAAGDEVE
Signing time: 10/27/2026
6:49:37 PM