MANIK CHANDRA MANDAL vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE SECRETARY / PR. SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY DEPT.
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:18952
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3520 of 2026
….…..
1. Manik Chandra Mandal, aged about 60 years, S/o Late
Ram Prasad Mandal, resident of Village-Barwatand, P.O.-
Kataniya Ojhadih, P.S.-Tundi, District-Dhanbad.
2. Utpal Kumar Mukherjee, aged about 60 years, S/o Late
Mihir Kumar Mukherjee, resident of Village-Pathuriya,
P.O.-Pathuriya, P.S.-Jaridih, District-Bokaro.
3. Abdul Hamid Ansari, aged about 60 years, S/o Late
Nanho Mian, resident of Village-Gunghasa, P.O.-
Gunghasa, P.S.-Hariharpur (Gomoh), District-Dhanbad.
4.Shiv Narayan Gupta, aged about 60 years, S/o Late
Munni Lal, resident of Village-Mandu Chatti, P.O.-Mandu,
P.S.-Mandu, District-Ramgarh.
5.Motilal Tudu, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Budhu
Tudu, resident of Village-Dandatand, P.O.-Dandatand,
P.S.-Maniyadih, District-Dhanbad. ..… Petitioner (s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/
Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O., P.S. &
District-Pakur.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur,
P.O., P.S. & District-Pakur.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O., P.S. &
District-Giridih.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih,
P.O., P.S. & District-Giridih. ..... Respondent(s)
….…..
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
….…
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv
M/s. Shivani Bhardwaj, Neha Bhardwaj,
Shubham Kumar, Siddharth Ranjan, K.S.
Chhabra, Advocates
For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I
C.A.V. ON: 15/06/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:29/06/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the
petitioners praying therein for a direction upon the respondents to
count their past services, rendered by them as Para Teachers for
the purpose of pensionary benefits, as all the petitioners retired
1
2026:JHHC:18952
from the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers.
In nutshell, the prayer of the petitioners is that they are
entitled for pensionary benefits including pension/family pension,
gratuity, leave encashment, GIS and GPF etc. counting their
contractual services rendered by them.
Background:
3. All the petitioners were initially appointed as Para Teachers
which was contractual in nature. While the petitioners were
rendering their services as contractual employees, advertisements
were issued by the respondents for appointment of Intermediate
Trained Teachers. 50% posts thereof were reserved/earmarked for
Para Teachers. The condition in the advertisements was that if Para
Teachers are claiming reservation of 50%, they have to satisfy the
authority that they have rendered uninterrupted service of two
years at least as Para Teachers. All the petitioners, since eligible in
all respects, applied for such appointment. The petitioners faced the
rigorous selection process and thereafter they were appointed on
the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers in the districts of Giridih
and Pakur of the State of Jharkhand. The service excerpts of the
petitioners, for the sake of brevity, are as follows:-
Sl.
No.
Name of the
Date of
joining as
Date of
relieving
Length of
service as
Date of
Date of
retirement
Length of
service as
Intermedi
The School from
Petitioners
joining
which retired
Para
Teacher
from
Para
Teacher
Para
Teacher
as
Interm
from the
post of
Intermediat
ate
Trained
Teachers
ediate
Traine
e Trained
d
Teache
Teachers
r
16.08.200
11.01.20
12.01.
1 Manik
Chandra
10 years
4 months
31.07.202
9 years
Primary
6
months
19 days
School
Pipratand
Block-Pirtand
Mandal
5
16
2016
26 days
5
Dist.-Giridih
2 Utpal
Kumar
Mukherjee
01.10.200
04.02.20
05.02.
11 years
4 months
31.01.202
9 years
U.M.S., Chino,
11
months
26 days
Block- Dumri
4 days
Dist.-Giridih
3
15
2015
5
10.10.200
11.01.20
12.01.
3 Abdul
Hamid
Ansari
8 years
3 months
31.12.202
9 years
11month
U.M.S.,
Pordag, Block-
2 days
s 20
days
Dumri, Dist.-
7
16
2016
5
Giridih
4 Shiv
Narayan
01.04.200
11.01.20
12.01.
12 years
9 months
31.01.202
9 years
19 days
U.M.S.,
Tuladih,
Block-Birni,
Dist.-Giridih
5 Motilal
3
16
2016
Gupta
11 days
5
29.06.200
01.02.20
02.02.
10 years
30.09.202
9 years
U.M.S.,
Chhotakutlo
7
months
29 days
Tudu
7
months 3
Block-
Litipara, Dist.-
5
16
2016
5
days
Pakur
2
2026:JHHC:18952
4. The case of the petitioners is that since they rendered much
more than two years uninterruptedly as contractual employees on
the post of Para Teachers, the services rendered as Para Teachers,
may be temporary/contractual, is required to be counted for the
purpose of pensionary benefits. Experience certificates while working
as Para Teachers of the petitioners are on record. The petitioners
have also placed on record the appointment letters in the shape of
Annexure-2 Series. After the petitioners were duly relieved from their
contractual appointment as Para Teachers, they were permitted to
join on the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers. Such relieving
orders by the concerned competent authority are placed on record as
Annexure-3 Series. In this way, the petitioners continued on the
contractual posts uninterruptedly from the date of their
appointment and they continued as such till they were taken into
regular establishment. After serving for more than 9 years, they
retired from the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers.
Submission of Petitioners :
5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that it is by now well settled that the
temporary/contractual services rendered by a person followed by
regular appointment is required to be counted for the purpose of
pensionary benefits. He places heavy reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State
of Utter Pradesh & Others , reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 . It has
been submited that the employee, the petitioner in that case, was
working as a work-charged employee. His case was that the period
rendered as work charged service be counted for the purpose of
grant of pension by adding such period under the qualifying service.
He has basically relied on paragraphs 33 and 34 read with para 36
of the judgment in the case of Prem Singh (supra) .
6. Mr. Tandon has further relied upon the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Vs.
State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No.27 of 2023, decided on
27.03.2023. He submits that while relying upon Prem Singh
3
2026:JHHC:18952
judgment (supra) , the Division Bench of this Court held that the
period rendered as temporary service in the work-charged
establishment has to be counted for the purpose of pension. The
Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single
Judge while issuing a writ of mandamus to calculate such period
and pay entire benefits with 6% simple interest. This order was
challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s) 37107 of 2023 , but the same was
dismissed on 14.05.2024.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the
recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh & Another Vs. Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1272 in order to submits that even in a case where the
period of contractual employment was ousted from the purview of
counting the period of qualifying service under the extent Rules, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court gave harmonious construction to the
relevant rules, being Rule 2 and 17 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
and held that if the employee was working on contract basis and
came to regular establishment later on, are entitled for counting
such period of contractual service for the purpose of pension. Said
judgement in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) was followed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash & Others Vs.
Union of India & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973 . Mr. Tandon
submits that relying upon the judgment in the case of Sheela Devi
(supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court recently reiterated the same view
with a direction to the respondents in that case to count the services
of contractual/temporary period for the purpose of pension.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance
upon Rules 56 and 58 of Jharkhand Pension Rule apart from other
provisions of the said Rule to contend that the
temporary/contractual period is required to be counted for the
purpose of pension as contractual employment was followed by
regular appointment.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel submits
4
2026:JHHC:18952
that the writ petitioners were though initially appointed/engaged as
contractual employee in the shape of Para Teachers but later on
after facing the selection process, they came in the regular
establishment in the same department, imparting education in the
same manner as they were discharging as Para Teachers, are
entitled for counting their past services of contractual employment
for the purpose of pension.
Submission of Respondents :
Mr. Ashok Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the State of
9.
Jharkhand, submits that the writ petition lacks merit and the same
is fit to be dismissed. He submits that the contractual employment
rendered by the petitioners could not be permitted to be counted for
the purpose of pensionary benefits of the petitioners. He further
submits that the petitioners were working under a Scheme and
thereafter they appeared in the selection process pursuant to
Advertisements and since they have not completed 10 years of
service, which is qualifying service for the purpose of pension, they
are not entitled for pensionary benefits.
Mr. Yadav has relied upon judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
10.
Court in the case of Parmeshwar Nanda Vs. State of Jharkhand
& Others , reported in ( 2020) 12 SCC 131 . The submission of the
learned counsel for the State is that in the case of Parmeshwar
Nanda (supra) , the petitioners were working under Adult Education
and Non-Formal Education Project which was closed. After closure
of the project, they remained out of service for a considerable period,
but thereafter the Government decided to absorb them. There was
interruption in service on account of abolition of posts.
He contended that the Supreme Court held in that case that
such period rendered in the Project which was closed could not be
counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Learned counsel places heavy reliance on this judgement to
buttress his argument to the effect that the writ petition deserves to
be dismissed. Learned Counsel has further relied upon the judgment
annexed as Annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the counter affidavit filed by
5
2026:JHHC:18952
respondent. It has also been submitted that Jharkhand Education
Project Council (JEPC) has not been impleaded as party respondent
in this case.
Analysis and Reasons :
11. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and perused the
materials on record. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that
these petitioners were initially appointed as Para Teachers. The
nature of such employment was contractual. They were appointed as
Para Teachers in between 2003 and 2005 . Later on, they faced the
selection process pursuant to Advertisements issued by Giridih and
Pakur Districts. After facing such selection process, these petitioners
were appointed and joined as Intermediate Trained Teachers in the
month of January/February, 2016.
12. The petitioners rendered their service for 08 to 12 years in the
contractual establishment. All the petitioners thereafter retired
sometime in the year 2025, which is reflected in the chart above. All
the petitioners have rendered more than 09 years of services in
permanent establishment but they lack some days/months to
complete 10 years, which is the qualifying service for the purpose of
pension.
13. It is also not in dispute that 50% posts of Intermediate
Trained Teachers were earmarked/reserved for Para Teachers who
have rendered at least two years of uninterrupted service as
contractual teachers. Petitioners were found fit under such criteria
which is evident from experience certificate. After the petitioners
were relieved, they were permitted to join in the regular
establishment. This itself shows that the petitioners were not only
found suitable for employment in permanent establishment, but
their service rendered as Para Teachers have also been considered
as a criteria for such appointment.
14. Once a criteria was fixed that Para Teachers who have
rendered at least two years of service are eligible for appointment
and the same was followed by regular employment; the petitioners
are very much entitled for counting of such period rendered as
6
2026:JHHC:18952
contractual employment for the purpose of pension.
15. The stand of the State is nothing but approbate and
reprobate. Once the State has fixed criteria that you must have
rendered two years regular service as Para Teachers for such
appointment, the State is duty bound to obey the simple principle
that the period rendered as Para Teachers are required to be
counted at least for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The State,
therefore, cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same
time.
16. Moreover, the case of the petitioners stands at better footing
than those cases referred hereinabove. From the factual matrix it is
evident that it is better than a case of normal regularisation. In fact,
the petitioners were given a chance to prove their merit and to face
the selection process. The only condition imposed was that they
must have rendered at least two years continuous service as Para
Teachers. All the petitioners proved their merit by facing selection
process and after they were declared successful, they were taken
into regular establishment. The fact, therefore, remains that the
services of the petitioners were regularised but before such
regularisation the petitioners had to face the selection process.
17. Ousting the petitioners from the purview of pensionary benefits
would be too harsh, in the facts of this case. Grant of pension to
government servant in lieu of service rendered by him is to tide over
vagaries and vicissitudes associated with old age, and is often an
important consideration for seeking government employment. It is
well settled that grant of pension is not a bounty. A right accrued to
the government servant cannot be taken away on their
superannuation only because they lack some days or months to
complete ten years of qualifying service. Pension scheme is floated
by the State Government which form part of beneficial legislation
and the same has to be interpreted widely.
18. It is necessary to underscore that the State Government is a
model employer and ought to uphold principles of fairness and
clarity. When the Supreme Court of India has already held that
7
2026:JHHC:18952
contractual service rendered has to be counted for the purpose of
pensionary benefits, if a person retires as Government Servant, this
Court is bound to follow such binding precedents. Therefore, this
Court holds that the petitioners are entitled for counting of their
services rendered as contractual employee.
19. The objection of the learned Counsel for the State that JEPC is
a necessary party in this case has no leg to stand. The petitioners
have not sought any relief against the JEPC, nor JEPC is going to be
adversely affected. The petitioners retired as Government Teachers.
The JEPC is under the School Education and Literacy Department.
Not only the Secretary of the department, but all Officers concerned
have been arraigned as party respondents in the writ petition. The
objection of the respondent-State, therefore, stands overruled.
20. The State has relied upon the judgement in the case of
Parmeshwar Nanda (supra) . This judgement is rendered in the facts
of that case, inasmuch as, such persons were working in a Project,
named Adult Education and Non-Formal Education Project which
was closed. After several years of closure of this Project, they were
appointed on different posts in the State of Jharkhand, that too, in
different departments. The writ petitioners of that case challenged
Clauses 11 and 12 of their appointment letters.
Further, Rule 103 of Jharkhand Pension Rule was placed to
21.
submit that the interruption in service of an employee entails
forfeiture of his past service. The petitioners of that case were
claiming seniority and pay protection also which they rendered
under the Project, which was closed. The Hon’ble Apex Court,
therefore, held that since the appellants of that case were absorbed
as fresh appointees without any protection and seniority, as a
consequence thereof, they will not be entitled to count their past
service rendered under a Project. That was a case where there was
interruption in service under the project because of the closure.
22. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners rendered
uninterrupted service as contractual employees, which was followed
by regular employment after facing selection process. The merit of
8
2026:JHHC:18952
these petitioners was tested by the respondent-State and thereafter
these petitioners were taken into regular establishment. This is a
case where all the petitioners were rendering their contractual
services in the same department i.e. School Education & Literacy
Department, State of Jharkhand and they were taken in the same
department in the regular establishment after facing the selection
process.
23. Thus, the facts of the case of Parmeshwar Nanda and the
present one are quite different. The judgement relied upon by
learned counsel for the respondent-State therefore, is not applicable
to the facts of this case.
Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State has also
24.
placed reliance on judgments annexed as Annexure-‘A’ & ‘B’ of the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The judgment in the case
of Mohammad Rasid Vs. State of Jharkhand, W.P (s) No.602 of
2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relates to
regularization. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court
to regularize the service on the post of Accountant-cum-Computer
Operators/Cook. They made out a case that they have rendered 10
years of service in Kasturba Gandhi Residential School at Sahibganj
and hence their services be regularized. This Court considered such
aspect of the matter and held that their services could not be
regularized on the ground that they were working on contractual
basis.
25. The other judgment relied upon by Mr. Yadav is Sachin
Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (s) No.3369 of 2019 . In this
case the petitioners, claimed payment of regular pay scale along with
dearness allowance as revised from time to time on the ground that
they rendered same and similar service as Government employees.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came to the
conclusion that they are not entitled for regular pay scales for the
period they were working as Para Teachers.
These judgments are totally misplaced for the simple reason
9
2026:JHHC:18952
that the petitioners are not claiming regularization. In fact, the
petitioners of the instant case have already been regularized after
facing rigorous selection process and they were taken into regular
establishment till the date of their reaching the age of 60 years. After
rendering more than 09 years of services all the petitioners were
allowed to superannuate. These petitioners are merely claiming
counting of their past services; whereas these two judgments relate
to regularization of their services.
26. The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied
upon Prem Singh (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has placed
reliance upon Utter Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rule, 1961 . Rule-
3(8) and 361 thereof are reproduced in paragraph 8 of the said
judgment. Regulation 361 of Utter Pradesh Civil Services Regulation
has also been reproduced in paragraph no.9 of the judgment. This
Regulation 361 is exactly pari materia with Rule-58 of Jharkhand
Pension Rule, as per which the service of an Officer does not qualify
for pension unless it confirms the following three conditions:-
First - The Service must be under Government.
Second - The employment must be substantive and
permanent.
Third - The service must be paid by Government.
27. It is not in dispute that while the petitioners were permitted to
retire from service, they were government servant and the
employment was substantive and permanent. Relying upon such
provision, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in the case of Prem Singh
(supra) that the period rendered in work-charged establishment are
required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Paragraphs-33, 34 and 36 are reproduced in extenso: -
“ 33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such
service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of
temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We
find that once regularisation had been made on vacant posts, though the
employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering
the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it
was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-
10
2026:JHHC:18952
charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It
would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider
contained in the Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such
service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is
sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and
permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service
of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before
regularization. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been
made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and
irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service.
Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees,
once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to
prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the
irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period
spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the
service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-
charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is
discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible
classification.
34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid
classification to make Rule 3(8) valid and non-discriminatory, we have to
read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered
even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees,
contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment
shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service
is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable
establishment.
36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in
spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas
they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-
charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services
ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and
even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi.
This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have
been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court’s
order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such
employees, In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked
for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be
proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have
been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular
one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming
any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service
regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be
entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular
establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day
they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as
qualifying service for purpose of pension.”
[emphasis supplied]
28. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Prem Singh (supra) has been followed by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Vs. State of
Jharkhand in L.P.A. No.27 of 2023 . The Division Bench of this
Court while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge held
that the period rendered as temporary or contractual is to be
counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Paragraphs 4, 5 and
6 are relevant:-
“ 4. The question of law involved is not any more res-integra and it has
been settled in various judgments by the Supreme Court including one in
11
2026:JHHC:18952
the case of Prem Singh versus State of Utter Pradesh and Others ,
reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516 , wherein the Supreme Court has held
that the imposition of rider that such service, i.e., service in the work-
charged establishment, to be counted has to be rendered in-between two
spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and
proper. The Supreme Court has further held that on vacant posts, though
the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis,
considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular
appointment, it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay
scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to
be crossed. The Supreme Court further held that it would be highly
discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in the Note
to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly,
when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between
two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There
is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in
case it has been rendered before regularization. In the opinion of the
Supreme Court impermissible classification has been made under Rule
3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The Supreme
Court held that such classification is highly unjust, impermissible and
irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service.
Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees,
once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to
prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the
irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period
spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the
service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-
charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is
discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible
classification.
5. In this case, the State of Jharkhand has not brought out any such
classification. In fact, there is no rule or classification contrary to
counting the period of service rendered in the work-charged
establishment as a qualifying service for calculating the retirement
benefits to an employee. We are of the opinion that the appellant is
entitled to retirement benefits, viz. General Provident Fund, Leave
Encashment, Gratuity and Pension, as admissible on the basis of the
date of initial appointment in the work-charged establishment, i.e.
01.12.1981.
6. This Letters Patent is, therefore, allowed. Order dated 21.12.2022
passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(s) No.5223 of 2022 is set aside.
The Writ Petition is allowed. Mandamus is issued to the respondents to
recalculate the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of this order along with simple
interest at the rate of 6% from the date of his retirement till the date of
actual payment. Let this order be communicated. Appellant-petitioner
will file requisites before the Registry within 7 (seven) days.”
[emphasis supplied]
29. The Division Bench of this Court not only set aside the order of
the Single Judge by issuing a writ of mandamus to count such
service for the purpose of pension but also directed to pay simple
interest @6% on the pensionary benefits. This judgment of the
Division Bench of this court was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex
Court, however, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court
was affirmed by dismissing the SLP (c) Diary No.37107 of 2023 on
14.05.2024.
30. There are two recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
12
2026:JHHC:18952
of India which dealt with similar issue of contractual/temporary
employment followed by regular employment. In the case of State of
Himachal Pradesh and Another Vs. Sheela Devi (supra) the
Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows in paragraphs no . 9, 10 and 11:-
“9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation,
inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual
employees are excluded from the pale of Pension Rules. However, what
is significant is that the rule itself in its opening terms saves the
application of other provisions of the pension rules ‘Save as otherwise
provide in these rules’. If the opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be
understood in this context, any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by
the State would render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17
was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where the
employees working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. It
is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual
employee is to be taken into account.
10. So far as the other arguments with respect to the voluntariness when
the employees enters into contractual services is concerned, this Court is
unpersuaded by the submission because those terms where applicable
as long as the employees remained on contract. However, his or her
status ceased upon regularization.
11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there
is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions are issued:-
(i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode and
manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned (who had
been regularized after spells of contractual employment) regardless of
the dates on which they were engaged i.e. prior to the year 2003 or
subsequently, within a time frame, of within eight weeks from today.
(ii) After receiving the option within the time indicated in the
notice, the concerned employee (s) who exercise the relevant options
should be notified about the amounts they would have to remit in case
any amount towards contribution is required, clearly.
(iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight
weeks from the last date of receiving options.
(iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire
process should be completed within four months and all orders fixing
pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be issued.”
[emphasis supplied]
The judgment of Sheela Devi (supra) has been followed by the
31.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash Vs. Union of
India (supra). While referring to Rule-17 of the relevant Rule, it was
held that employment rendered as contractual employees are
required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Paragraphs-8 and 9 are profitable to quote:-
“8. This rule fell for consideration and interpretation in Sheela Devi
(supra), where this Court held that although Rule 2(g) of the Pension
Rules excludes contractual employees from their application, Rule 17
applies once such contractual employee is regularised on a later date.
The effect is that upon regularisation, the Pension Rules become
applicable and Rule 17 requires that past service as a contractual
employee is to be taken into account for calculating pension in this light,
and considering that Rule 17 requires the regularised employee to
exercise and option to either retain the Government’s contribution to
Contributory Provident Fund, or to refund such amount or forgo the same
if they have not been paid in lieu of counting the service period for which
such benefits may have been payable, this Court in Sheela Devi (supra)
issued the following directions:-
13
2026:JHHC:18952
11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there
is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions are issued:-
(i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode
and manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned (who
had been regularized after spells of contractual employment) regardless
of the dates on which they were engaged i.e. prior to the year 2003 or
subsequently, within a time frame, of within eight weeks from today.
(ii) After receiving the option within the time indicated in
the notice, the concerned employee (s) who exercise the relevant options
should be notified about the amounts they would have to remit in case
any amount towards contribution is required, clearly.
(iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight
weeks from the last date of receiving options.
(iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire
process should be completed within four months and all orders fixing
pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be issued.”
9. In the light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as
well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), the contractual service
period rendered prior to the appellants’ regularisation in 2015 must be
counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance
with the mechanism set out in Rule 17 in line with the directions issued
in Sheela Devi (supra) extracted hereinabove, we direct the respondent
Union of India to take immediate steps and indicate the mode and
manner for the appellants to exercise the option provided under Rule 17
of the Pension Rules as well as to notify the amounts that the appellants
would have to remit in case they opt for grant of pension under the
Rules.”
[emphasis supplied]
Coming to the facts of the case, this Court holds that
32.
undisputedly the petitioners were rendering their services as
contractual employees on the post of Para Teachers. They were
having much more than two years of uninterrupted service as
contractual employees. This was followed by appointment of these
petitioners after facing selection process in a regular establishment
of the same department.
Hence, considering the binding precedents of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Singh (supra); Sheela
Devi (supra); and S.D. Jayaprakash (supra), this Court holds that
the period rendered in contractual establishment of the petitioners
are required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Conclusion :
33. In the light of what has been held above, all the petitioners are
entitled for pensionary benefits after counting their past services
rendered in contractual/temporary establishment. This court issues
a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to count the services of
the writ petitioners with effect from 16.08.2005, 01.10.2003,
10.10.2007, 01.04.2003 and 29.06.2005 respectively for the purpose
14
2026:JHHC:18952
of pensionary benefits.
The respondents are further directed to calculate all the post-
retirement benefits of the petitioners and pay the same within a
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with
simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of their retirements till the
date of actual payment.
34. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed.
Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Dated:29/06/2026
Amardeep/
A.F.R
Uploaded on
01.07.2026
15