PARAS RAM AHEER vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1 / 5

CGHC010132912025 2026:CGHC:45083
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2378 of 2025
Paras Ram Aheer S/o Late Shri Pyare Lal Yadav Aged About 62 Years
Retired Technical Assistant, Govt. Girls Polytechnic College, Byron
Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through It's Secretary, Department Of
Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nawa Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
JYOTI
SHARMA
2. Director Technical Education, Directorate, Indrawati Bhawan, Nawa
Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
Digitally signed by
JYOTI SHARMA
Date: 2026.10.27
11:02:13 +0530
3. Divisional Joint Director Treasury, Account And Pension, Raipur
Division, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
4. Principal Govt. Girls Polytechnic College, Byron Bazar, Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondents/ State : Ms. Apurva Nigam, P.L.
(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU)
Order on Board
26/10/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially appointed as a Lab Assistant on ad hoc basis vide order
dated 26.04.1989, as amended on 01.05.1989, and his services
were subsequently regularised on 24.01.1995. It is further
submitted that, after rendering more than 35 years of service, the
petitioner retired from the post of Technical Assistant on
30.09.2024. However, while processing his pension proposal,

2 / 5
respondent No. 3 raised an objection regarding the inclusion of
the petitioner's ad hoc service period for the purpose of
pensionary benefits. Consequently, respondent No. 4 directed the
petitioner to give his consent for calculation of pensionary benefits
from the date of regularisation, i.e., 24.01.1995, excluding his ad
hoc service rendered from 01.05.1989. Learned counsel contends
that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary
to the rules and circulars issued by the State Government. Hence,
the present writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the State by filing its reply submits that, as
per the instructions issued by the Finance Department on
26.08.1995, the period of ad hoc service can be counted for
pensionary benefits only where the employee was appointed
against a regular post and his services were subsequently
regularised without any interruption or break in service. It is further
submitted that, although the petitioner was initially appointed on
an ad hoc basis with effect from 01.05.1989, there was a break in
his service of 19 days. Therefore, his past service rendered on an
ad hoc basis cannot be counted as qualifying service for
computation of pensionary benefits. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner has neither challenged the aforesaid
instructions dated 26.08.1995 nor given his consent for calculation
of pensionary benefits from the date of his regularisation.
Consequently, the petitioner's pension case has not yet been
finalised. Hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by filing a rejoinder further,
submits that, in terms of sub-para (iii) of Paragraph 2 of the

3 / 5
circular dated 05.03.2008 issued by the State Government, a
break in service exceeding one month alone is to be treated as a
break in service. It is contended that, as admitted by the
respondents in their return, the total break in the petitioner's
service was only 19 days during the period from 01.05.1989 to
30.04.1995, and therefore, the said period cannot be treated as a
break in service for the purpose of computation of pensionary
benefits. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner's
initial date of appointment, i.e., 01.05.1989, was duly recorded in
his service book and accepted by the competent authority, and
the respondents never raised any objection in this regard during
his service. It is also contended that the short breaks during the
ad hoc period were merely artificial or nominal in nature and that
similarly situated employees have been granted pensionary
benefits by counting their ad hoc service. Accordingly, learned
counsel submits that, on the principle of parity and in terms of the
aforesaid circular, the petitioner is entitled to computation of his
qualifying service from the date of his initial appointment, i.e.,
01.05.1989, for the grant of pensionary benefits.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
5. For ready reference the relevant part of Circular dated 05.03.2008
is quoted below:-
iii) ( )
संबंधित व्यक्ति ने दैनिक वेतन भोगी चाहे कलेक्टर दर पर के रूप
31-12-1997
में अथवा तदर्थ रूप में दिनांक तक लगातार उसी पद
पर या समकक्ष पद पर कार्य किया हो के संबंध में लगातार कार्य करना

4 / 5
( )
सेवा देता तब ही माना जायेगा यदि प्रत्येक वर्ष में कुल सेवा ब्रेक एक
माह से अधिक की न हो। लगातार सेवा के लिये हड़ताल की अवधि
"
सेवा में ब्रेक नहीं मानी जायेगी।
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of
the material available on record, this Court finds that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition pertains to the
counting of the petitioner's ad hoc service for the purpose of
computation of pensionary benefits. The petitioner was initially
appointed on an ad hoc basis with effect from 01.05.1989 and his
services were subsequently regularised on 24.01.1995. The
respondents have objected to the inclusion of the petitioner's ad
hoc service on the ground that there was a break in service of 19
days. However, a perusal of the circular dated 05.03.2008,
particularly Sub-para (iii) of Paragraph 2 thereof, makes it clear
that the continuity of service of an employee appointed on a daily-
wage or ad hoc basis is to be recognised where the total break in
service in a particular year does not exceed one month. In the
present case, the break in service, as admitted by the
respondents themselves, is only 19 days. Thus, the said break
does not exceed the permissible limit prescribed under the
aforesaid circular. Consequently, the respondents' objection to
counting the petitioner's ad hoc service solely on the ground of
the aforesaid break in service cannot be sustained. The
petitioner's claim for counting his ad hoc service from 01.05.1989
for the purpose of pensionary benefits, therefore, deserves
consideration in terms of the applicable rules and the aforesaid
circular. The respondents cannot deny such benefit merely on the

5 / 5
ground of a break in service which falls within the permissible limit
prescribed by the State Government.
7. Further very recently the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab
School Education Board and Another Vs. Satnam Singh and
Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2022 (decided on 8.9.2026)
has held that the services by employees rendered on contract/
ad hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularization must be computed
as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral and pension
benefits. The breaks in service were either 'notional' or
artificial/administrative breaks, or precipitated by Court orders.
They must be ignored and the service should be treated as
continuous.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed.
The respondents are directed to count the petitioner's ad hoc
service with effect from 01.05.1989 for the purpose of
computation of qualifying service and grant of pensionary
benefits, subject to fulfilment of other applicable conditions under
the relevant rules. The respondents shall undertake the necessary
exercise and revise the petitioner's pensionary benefits
accordingly within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Any consequential arrears found
payable shall also be released to the petitioner within the
aforesaid period.
Sd/-
(BIBHU DATTA GURU)
JUDGE
Jyoti