ORDER 1. The petitioner No.1 Sant Kumar Mishra was initially appointed as daily rated Chowkidar on 14.2.1979 on the clear vacant and regular post of contingency Chowkidar sanctioned under the contingency establishment. His services were regularized as contingency Chowkidar on 1.5.2013. He has already retired on completion of 62 years of age on 31.8.2015. Prior to his regularization on 5.6.2013, which is w.e.f. 1.5.2013 he had completed 34 years of service and as per rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979, his previous services rendered as temporary employee (daily wage employee) deserves to be counted for the purpose of pension and he is entitled for the pension. 2. So far as the petitioner No.2 Nemwati Kol’s husband, namely Shankar Lal Kol is concerned, he was appointed as Chowkidar on daily rated basis against the regular and vacant post of contingency Chowkidar in contingency establishment on 1.5.1984 and has worked continuously on daily wage basis and was regularized on 5.8.2013 w.e.f. 1.5.2013 on the post of contingency Chowkidar. Shankar Lal Kol expired on 10.10.2013 while in service as regular employee and he had completed 29 years of service prior to his regularization as temporary daily wage employee on regular and sanctioned post of contingency Chowkidar of contingency establishment. It is contended that that he is also entitled to be given pension in the light of provisions of rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979 as also in the light of the judgment dated 17.11.2004 passed in Writ Petition No.2698/2003 (Lallan Bai v. State of M.P. and two others) and connected Writ Petition No.4357/2004 (Bal Kishan Patel v. State of M.P. and others) by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled to get pension and family pension as admissible to contingency paid employees under the Pension Rules, 1979 but the same is not accorded to them despite numerous requests. The petitioners have also relied upon the definition of permanent employee as defined in rule 2(c) of Pension Rules, 1979 and the same reads as under :- (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.” 4. Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979 deals with the commencement of qualifying service, which reads as under :- “6. Commencement of qualifying service. Rule 6 of the Pension Rules, 1979 deals with the commencement of qualifying service, which reads as under :- “6. Commencement of qualifying service. (1) Subject to the provisions of chapter III of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 of section IV of Madhya Pradesh New Pension Rules, 1959, as the case may be, for calculating qualifying service of a permanent employee who retired as such, the service rendered with effect from the 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted. (2) On absorption of a permanent employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1959 onwards shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post. (3) On absorption of temporary employee without interruption against any regular pensionable post, the service rendered with effect from 1st January, 1974 onwards, if such service is of not less than six years shall be counted for pension as if such service was rendered in a regular post.” 5. In the return, the respondents have submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to get the relief as claimed by them as their services have to be counted from the date of their regularization i.e. 1.5.2013 and their prior service cannot be taken into account for the same. It is further submitted that as per rule 2(c) of the M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979, contingency paid employees or work charged employees shall be treated as permanent employees if they complete 15 years service or more and since in the present case the petitioner No.1 has completed only two years of service under the Contingency Paid Establishment and the husband of petitioner No.2 has completed only 5 months’ service, hence as per rule 6 of the Rules of 1979, qualifying service for pension is 6 years, hence the petitioners are not entitled for the same and for the same reason the decision relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Lallan Bai (supra), is not applicable in the present case as in the case of Lallan Bai (supra), they had already completed 6 years of qualifying as per rule 6. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. A bare reading of the aforesaid decision clearly reveals that the decision in the case of Lallan Bai and Bal Kishan Patel passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (By Hon’ble Shri Justice Arun Mishra as His Lordship then was) has not been based on the ground that the petitioners in those cases had already completed six years’ qualifying service as tried to be distinguished by the respondents but on the ground that the services which have been rendered as qualifying service under rule 6(3) of the Pension Rules of 1979 has to be counted as rendered on a regular post. The relevant paragraphs No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10 and 15 of the order dated 17.11.2004 passed in Lallan Bai (supra), read as under :- “3. In W.P.S. No.2698/2003 – Smt. Lallan Bai v. State of M.P. and others, it is not in dispute that workman late Shri Jagmohan Singh Gond had entered the services as daily wage employee on 24.10.1985, his services were regularized on 13.6.1992. He died on 4.11.1999 rendering the services for more than 7 years after the date of regularization. 4. In W.P.S. No.4357/2004 – Bal Kishan Patel v. State of M.P. and others, petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis on 1.4.1979. He rendered the continuous service till the date of regularization i.e. 13.2.1997. He retied on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2003. He has rendered the services for 6 years and 13 days after regularization. Pension has been denied to him on the ground that he has rendered less than 10 years service. 5. In both the petitions, petitioners have submitted that the services rendered prior to regularization has to be taken into consideration as per rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1979. Petitioners have also placed reliance on rule 4(A), their precise submission is that services rendered for more than 6 years in workcharged and contingency has to be taken as rendered in regular establishment for the purpose of determining the qualifying services. Rules 47(3) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 has also been relied upon, which has been made applicable by virtue of amendment made in rule 4-A of Pension Rules of 1979. 6. Rules 47(3) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 has also been relied upon, which has been made applicable by virtue of amendment made in rule 4-A of Pension Rules of 1979. 6. In the return filed by the respondents in W.P.S. No.2698/2003, it is contended that deceased employee has rendered the services for 7 years, 4 months and 23 days in the work-charge establishment. Reliance has been placed on the definition of permanent employee in rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1979. It is submitted that person must have rendered the minimum 10 years service in the workcharge establishment to earn the pension, hence it is submitted that deceased Jagmohan Singh Gond did not qualify for the pension, hence rejection of the case for family pension of the petitioner Smt. Lallan Bai is proper. No interference is called for. 7. In the return filed in W.P.S. No.4357/2004, it is contended that petitioner Bal Kishan Patel has not completed 10 years of qualifying services as defined in rule 2(c). He has completed the services of only 6 years and 13 days after regularization. Before regularization the salary fixed by the Collector used to be paid on daily basis. Petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Circular (P-4). 10. M.P. Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Pension Rules, 1979 defines the contingency paid employees to mean an employee who is paid on monthly basis. Work-charge employees 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 excluding the daily paid labour and muster role employee employed on the work. It is not in dispute in the instant cases that Bal Kishan Patel was regularized and brought under the purview of the Rules of 1979 w.e.f. 13.2.1997 and deceased Jagmohan Singh Gond was brought under the purview of the above rules w.e.f. 13.6.1992. Rule 2(c) defines the permanent employees thus :- “Permanent employee” means a contingency paid employee or a workcharged 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 who has attained the age of superannuation or on after 1-4-1981 permanent employee means an employee who has completed ten years of service on or after the 1st January, 1974. 15. Resultantly both the writ petitions are allowed. 15. Resultantly both the writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders (P-8) in W.P.S. No.2698/2003 and order (P-3) in W.P.S. No.4357/2004, are hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to determine the pension in accordance with law in terms of the above direction within 3 months from today and make the payment of the same along with interest of 6% per annum from the date the pension has been wrongfully deprived to the petitioners. Cost on parties.” 8. Thus, the services rendered by the petitioner No.1 and husband of the petitioner No.2 for a period of 2 years and 5 months respectively after their regularization are inconsequential what is relevant is that the tenure of their service prior to their regularization which is 34 years and 29 years respectively for both the petitioners. 9. In the result, this petition also deserves to be and is hereby allowed on the same terms as in the case of Lallan Bai (supra). It is further directed that the respondents shall determine the pension in accordance with law in terms of the above direction within 3 months from today and make the payment of the same along with interest of 6% per annum from the date the pension has been wrongfully deprived to the petitioners. No order as to costs.