Ad hoc service cannot count as regular service for NFSG eligibility without legal justification.

K.R. Nair was promoted as Section Officer (SO) on an ad hoc basis on 15 March 1996 and received regular promotion in 2006.

He claimed that regular SO vacancies had been available earlier and that, if his service from 1996 had been treated as regular, he would have completed the four years’ regular SO service required for the Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) before retirement.

He sought NFSG and consequential pensionary benefits before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which granted notional relief.

The Union of India challenged that order, relying on delay and on the cadre authorities’ responsibility to communicate vacancies to the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT).

1. Whether Nair’s claim was barred by limitation because he sought, after retirement, to have his 1996 ad hoc appointment treated as regular.

2. Whether the CAT was justified in directing that Nair’s initial ad hoc appointment be treated as regular, thereby qualifying him for NFSG and consequential pensionary benefits.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 governs limitation for applications before the CAT; a recurring pensionary consequence does not, by itself, renew a cause of action where the underlying relief is to alter the status of an appointment made years earlier.

The Supreme Court’s decision in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118, recognises that although regular recruitment is the norm, administrative exigencies may justify ad hoc or temporary appointments.

Under the applicable service requirement identified by the Court, NFSG required four years’ regular service as an SO.

The Court held that the substance of Nair’s claim was to have his 1996 ad hoc appointment retrospectively treated as regular; the cause of action for that relief arose at the time of the appointment, not when its effect on pension became apparent.

The CAT therefore erred in treating the pensionary impact as a recurring cause of action that overcame the unexplained delay.

On the merits, the Court noted that ad hoc appointments may be made even against regular vacancies and that the CAT had identified no legal basis for converting Nair’s initial ad hoc appointment into a regular one.

DOPT’s explanation—that it acted on vacancy information supplied by cadre authorities—was not rejected by the CAT; moreover, the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, whose explanation for the vacancies had not been communicated was relevant, had not been impleaded.

Without regular SO service from 1996, Nair could not establish the four-year regular-service requirement for NFSG on the basis accepted by the CAT.

It quashed and set aside the CAT’s judgment and allowed the Union of India’s writ petition.