Work-charged and contingency paid employees are entitled to pension upon completing six years of qualifying service.

The original petitioner was appointed as a Peon (contingency paid employee) on 06.07.1993, initially for 89 days.

His services were subsequently regularized on 02.06.2008 as a work-charged and contingency paid employee.

He retired upon reaching the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015.

Following his retirement, the respondents denied him pensionary benefits on the grounds that he had not completed 10 years of regular service.

The original petitioner moved the High Court seeking a direction for the grant of pension and retiral benefits; following his death on 19.01.2022, his legal heirs pursued the matter.

1. Whether a work-charged and contingency paid employee, whose services were regularized and who completed more than six years of service post-regularization, is entitled to pensionary benefits under the 1979 Rules.

2. Whether the period of service rendered as a contingency paid employee prior to regularization can be considered for the purpose of attaining "permanent" status to qualify for pension.

The Court primarily applied the Madhys Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employee) Pension Rules, 1979.

Specifically, Rule 2(c) defines a "permanent employee" as one who completes 15 years of service (reduced to 10 years, and subsequently to 6 years for those retiring after 01.04.1981).

Rule 6 provides for the counting of qualifying service for such employees.

The Court also relied on the principle established in Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar (2023 SCC OnLine SC 527), which held that while work-charged service might not count directly for the pension quantum in all contexts, employees cannot be denied pension if they were regularized after long service but technically fall short of qualifying years post-regularization.

Precedents from Smt. Rahisha Begum v. State of M.P. (2010 (4) MPLJ 332) and the Full Bench in Smt. Mamta Shukla v. State of M.P. (2011(3) MPHT 81) regarding Rule 6 were also considered.

The Court reasoned that under Rule 2(c) of the 1979 Rules, the petitioner attained the status of a "permanent employee" upon completing the requisite years of service as a contingency paid employee, regardless of when the formal order of regularization was passed.

The Court observed that the petitioner was appointed in 1993 and regularized in 2008, and he continued until 2015.

Since he had completed more than six years of service following his formal regularization and had a long tenure of prior service, he satisfied the statutory qualifying criteria under Rule 6.

The Court distinguished the State's reliance on *Mamta Shukla*, noting there was no evidence that the petitioner’s initial appointment violated the 1977 Recruitment Rules, and emphasized the Supreme Court’s stance in *Uday Pratap Thakur* that pension cannot be denied to regularized employees on narrow technical grounds regarding qualifying service.

The Court directed the respondents to: (i) calculate and release pension and retiral benefits to the petitioner's estate, treating his regularized service as qualifying service; (ii) pay arrears from 30.06.2015 until his death on 19.01.2022; and (iii) grant family pension to his legal representatives from 19.01.2022 onwards.

All benefits must be disbursed within three months, failing which a 6% per annum interest rate shall apply.