Continuous pre-regularisation work-charged service counts toward pensionary benefits under Rule 6(3).

The petitioner was initially engaged as a daily-wage employee in 1981 for 89 days.

He was subsequently continued in service and appointed temporarily in a work-charged establishment as Mechanic Grade-III in 1988.

His services were regularized on a Class III executive post on 25 March 1992.

He retired on 30 June 2016, but his pensionary service was calculated only from the date of regularization, excluding his earlier service as a daily-wage and work-charged employee.

The petitioner also claimed an additional GPF amount of ₹1,19,704 based on an earlier statement issued by the Accountant General.

The Accountant General subsequently clarified that the earlier entry was provisional and that, after adjustment, only ₹19,130 was payable.

The State opposed counting the petitioner’s pre-regularization service, relying on the Full Bench decision in Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P.

Whether the petitioner’s service rendered as a daily-wage and work-charged employee from 1981 until his regularization in 1992 could be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits under Rule 6(3) of the M.P. Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees’ Pension Rules, 1979.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the additional GPF amount of ₹1,19,704 claimed on the basis of the earlier Accountant General’s statement, or only the adjusted amount of ₹19,130.

The Court applied Rule 6(3) of the M.P. (Work-charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979, which provides that, upon absorption of a temporary employee without interruption against a regular pensionable post, service rendered from 1 January 1974 onwards may be counted for pension if the employee has completed not less than six years of such service.

The Court also relied on the Full Bench judgment in Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P. and Others, 2011 (3) MPLJ 210, which held that past service can be counted under Rule 6 only where the employee was appointed in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules; an employee appointed outside the prescribed recruitment process would not qualify.

A provisional or unadjusted GPF entry does not create an enforceable entitlement, and the amount finally determined by the Accountant General after adjustment governs.

The Court found that the petitioner had been continuously engaged from 1981, first as a daily-wage employee and thereafter in the work-charged establishment, and that the respondents had produced no material showing any interruption or discontinuance of service.

Although Mamta Shukla restricts the benefit of Rule 6 to appointments made in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, the Court found no material demonstrating that the petitioner had been appointed against a vacant post or in violation of due process.

Since he had continued for more than six years before regularization, the requirements of Rule 6(3) were held to be satisfied, entitling him to have his service counted from the date of initial engagement in 1981.

On the GPF claim, the Court accepted the Accountant General’s clarification that the higher entry was provisional and that only ₹19,130 remained payable after adjustment, particularly as the petitioner produced no contrary evidence.

The respondents were directed to count the petitioner’s qualifying service from his initial engagement in 1981 for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits, issue an amended Pension Payment Order, and pay the resulting arrears within three months from production of a certified copy of the order.

If payment was delayed, the arrears would carry applicable bank interest from the date of filing of the petition.

In respect of GPF, the petitioner was held entitled only to the amount of ₹19,130, as determined by the Accountant General after adjustment, and not the claimed amount of ₹1,19,704.