Qualifying contract service rendered without a break must be counted for pensionary benefits.

The petitioner, a retired employee, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking settlement of retiral dues with interest, inclusion of the period during which he rendered contractual service and received non-practising allowance for pension fixation, refund of alleged excess recovery from leave encashment, and consideration of his pending representations.

The petitioner contended that, under Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, his contractual service was required to be counted because he was subsequently appointed to the same or an equivalent post without any break in service.

He relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in S.D. Jayprakash and Others v. Union of India and Others, dated 29 April 2025, concerning the corresponding Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The State submitted that the non-practising allowance had already been paid, but accepted that any remaining grievance could be considered on the petitioner’s representation.

Whether the petitioner’s period of contractual service was required to be counted for determining his pensionary benefits under Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to consideration and payment of any remaining non-practising allowance, with interest for delayed payment.

Whether the respondents were required to refix the petitioner’s pension and clear the consequential dues after counting the contractual service period.

The Court applied Rule 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, under which contractual service may be counted for pensionary purposes where an employee is initially appointed on contract to a specified post and is subsequently appointed, without a break in service, to the same or an equivalent post.

The Court treated this provision as pari materia with Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in S.D. Jayprakash and Others v. Union of India and Others, which recognised the counting of qualifying contractual service for pensionary purposes.

The Court further directed payment of interest at 6% per annum on delayed non-practising allowance.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim for counting contractual service was directly covered by Rule 16 and the principle laid down in S.D. Jayprakash.

The State was unable to justify excluding the petitioner’s contractual service from the computation of pensionary benefits.

Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to count the contractual period, refix the petitioner’s pension, and clear the resulting dues within three months.

Regarding non-practising allowance, although the State asserted that payment had been made, the Court directed consideration of the petitioner’s fresh or pending representation and payment of any amount found due, together with interest for delay.

No separate relief was expressly granted in the operative directions regarding the claimed 18% interest or alleged excess recovery from leave encashment.