JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By filing this appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 state of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries have assailed the order dated 16-10-2008 passed by the learned Writ Court in W.P. No. 3365/07 (S). 2. The writ Petitioner (Respondent herein this appeal) is a retired Government employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh and has filed a writ petition claiming pension. According to the Respondent he was appointed as daily wager in the year 1960 and thereafter his services were regularised on 1st January, 1996. Further, it has been pleaded by him that he has been retired from services' on attaining the age of superannuation as a regular Gangman with effect from 31st December, 2002. According to the Respondent, he has completed 30 years of service as on 1st January, 2002 and on his retirement he submitted an application for the grant of pension which has not been allowed vide order dated 25th January, 2005 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department Shivpuri stating therein that for the entitlement of the pension ten years minimum regular service is required under the Pension Rules, and therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits. Hence, the said order was challenged by the Respondent by filing a writ petition before the learned Writ Court. 3. The Appellants, who were Respondents before the learned Writ Court filed their return and pleaded that the writ Petitioner being a daily rated employee although his services were regularised in the year 1996 and because he did not acquire the minimum qualifying service of 10 years after regularisation,. hence he is not at all eligible for the grant of pension. The Appellants placed reliance upon a circular of the State Government which was annexed as Annexure R-l before the learned Writ Court and submitted that according to that circular a Government servant is entitled for the pension only if he has served for 10 years or more. The Appellants along with their return also filed Annexure R-2, which is some office order dated 10th July, 2003 granting pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- to the writ Petitioner. The Appellants along with their return also filed Annexure R-2, which is some office order dated 10th July, 2003 granting pay scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- to the writ Petitioner. The further stand which was taken by the Appellants in their return is that since the writ Petitioner was appointed as daily wager, he is not governed by the Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for brevity "the Pension Rules of 1979"), and therefore, the question of granting pension to the writ Petitioner does not arise. Further the case of Appellants is that the writ Petitioner has discharged his duties as regularised daily wages labourer, and therefore, for this another reason also the Pension Rules of 1979 are not applicable to him. Hence, it has been submitted that since the writ Petitioner has not rendered 10 years qualifying service after regularisation, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of pension. 4. The learned Writ Court came to hold that on account of amended circular issued by the State of M.P. wherein the qualifying services of 10 years has been reduced to six years after regularisation which is made effective with effect from 1st January, 1996, the Petitioner is entitled for the pension, and hence, allowed the writ petition by passing the following directions which reads thus: Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the order passed by the Respondents dated 25th January, 2005 (Annexure P-1) is set aside. The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner afresh as he is entitled for the benefit of pension keeping in view the provisions of the Rules of 1979. The Petitioner shall also be entitled for the arrears of pension, however, the Petitioner shall not be entitled for any interest on the amount in question. The entire exercise shall be completed by the Respondents within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 5. We have heard Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent/State and Shri Shivendra Singh, learned Counsel for Respondent. 6. According to learned Additional Advocate General, the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for brevity "the Pension Rules of 1976") would be applicable in the case and not the Pension Rules of 1979. 5. We have heard Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent/State and Shri Shivendra Singh, learned Counsel for Respondent. 6. According to learned Additional Advocate General, the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for brevity "the Pension Rules of 1976") would be applicable in the case and not the Pension Rules of 1979. It has also been put forth by him that the status of regular employee after regularisation is altogether different from the employee who has been made permanent on the basis of Work Charged Rules of 1974. It has also been put forth by him that the word "regularised" is distinct and different from "permanent work charged employee" and in support of his contention learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman AIR 1997 SC 693 . 7. Combating the aforesaid submissions put forth by learned Additional Advocate General, it has been argued by Shri Shivendra Singh, learned Counsel for Respondent that the Pension Rules of 1979 would be applicable to the Respondent/writ petition and this position has been settled earlier by the Division Bench of this Court in Shrikrishna Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2003 (4) M.P.L.J. 376. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court Vishnu Mutiya and Ors. v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2006(1) M.P.H.T. 374 (FB) : 2006 (1) MPLJ 23 , wherein it has been held that the services of Gangman would be governed by the Pension Rules of 1979. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Surendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2005 (3) MPLJ 385 and has also put emphasis on the basis of the decision of Supreme Court Ram Kumar Agrawal v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 67. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in Surendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2005 (3) MPLJ 385 and has also put emphasis on the basis of the decision of Supreme Court Ram Kumar Agrawal v. State of M.P. and Ors. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 67. By inviting our attention to the definitions of 'contingency paid employees', 'work charged employee' and 'permanent employee', it has been contended by him that in the Division Bench decision of this Court Shrikrishna (supra), and in the Full Bench decision of this Court Vishnu Mutiya (supra), all these points have been taken into consideration, and hence, learned Writ Court by placing reliance on the Division Bench decision in Shrikrishna (supra), has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, and therefore, it has been prayed that this appeal sans substance and the same be dismissed. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. In the present case there are following unfolded and admitted facts: (i) writ Petitioner was appointed as daily wager in the year 1960; (ii) his services were regularised vide Annexure R-2 on 1-1-1996; and (iii) he was retired on 31-12-2002. Before dealing with the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, we would like to apt to quote the definitions of 'Contingency paid employee', 'Workcharged employee' and 'Permanent employee' as defined in the Pension Rules of 1979, which reads thus: (a) "Contingency paid employee" means a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to office contingencies excluding the employees who are employed for certain period only in a year. (b) "Work charged employee" means a person employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from general supervision of a specified work or upon subordinate supervision of the departmental labour, store, running and repairs of electrical equipment and machinery in connection with such work, excluding, excluding the daily paid labour and muster-roll employee employed on the work. (b) "Work charged employee" means a person employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from general supervision of a specified work or upon subordinate supervision of the departmental labour, store, running and repairs of electrical equipment and machinery in connection with such work, excluding, excluding the daily paid labour and muster-roll employee employed on the work. (c) "Permanent employee" means a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974: Provided that in respect of a contingency paid employee or a workcharged employee who has attained the age of superannuation on or after the First April, 1981, permanent employee mean an employee who has completed 10 years of service on or after the 1st January, 1974. 10. On taking into consideration Rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules of 1979 it is luminously clear that a person can be said to be a permanent employee who has completed 15 years of service or more on or after 1st January, 1974 as contingency paid or a work charged employee. Since undisputedly the Petitioner was appointed as daily wager in the year 1960, hence in the year 1975 he has completed 15 years of his service. No doubt he was regularised vide Annexure R-2 on 1-1-1996, but before he was regularised he already qualified the qualifying service for the grant of pension. It is not at all in dispute that the qualifying service 10 years as envisaged in the Proviso to definition clause of 'permanent employee' stated in Rule 2(c) of the Pension Rules of 1979, has been reduced to six years vide notification dated 30th January, 1996. But, according to us, the writ Petitioner already qualified the qualifying service for obtaining the pension, and hence, according to us, the Respondent has been rightly granted relief by the learned Writ Court. 11. Indeed, this aspect of the matter has already been taken note of in Paras 4, 5 and 6 by the Division Bench of this Court in Shrikrishna (supra), which has also been quoted by the learned Writ Court. We do not find any merit in the contentions of learned Additional Advocate General for Appellant/State that the Pension Rules of 1976 would be applicable upon the contingency paid or work charged employee. We do not find any merit in the contentions of learned Additional Advocate General for Appellant/State that the Pension Rules of 1976 would be applicable upon the contingency paid or work charged employee. If we go through the application of these Pension Rules of 1976 as envisaged in Rule 2 of the said Rules, we find that these Rules are not applicable to certain employees, who have been categorized (ii) (a) to (g)." According to Clause (a) these Rules would not be applicable for the persons in a work-charged establishment, and therefore, since the Pension Rules of 1976 are expressly made in-applicable to those employees, according to us, learned Writ Court has rightly allowed the writ petition of the writ Petitioner. The Full Bench of this Court in Vishnu Mutiya (supra), Para 14 has also taken note of that the pension of Gangman would govern by the Pension Rules of 1979. Needless to say the Respondent has been retired from the post of Gangman. 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Since, a very low paid employee has been dragged to this Court firstly by filing writ petition and thereafter assailing the order of learned Writ Court by filing this appeal, according to us, he is entitled for the exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000/-. This petition is allowed with costs throughout. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/-. Let the exemplary cost and cost of writ petition as well as this appeal be paid to the Respondent along with his pension, which he will draw in the month of November, 2010.