Ad Hoc Service Followed by Regularization Must Be Counted for Seniority and Retiral Benefits

The petitioners were appointed as Female Health Workers on an ad hoc and temporary basis in January 2004 in a regular pay scale

In 2010, following a fresh recruitment process for state-wise vacancies conducted by the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board, the petitioners were selected and their services were regularized

However, the respondent authorities treated their service for the purposes of pay fixation, seniority, and retiral benefits from the date of regularization (2010) rather than the date of initial appointment (2004), effectively washing out six years of service

The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a mandate to reckon their ad hoc service from 2004 for all purposes, including continuity and terminal benefits

Whether the services rendered by the petitioners on an ad hoc basis from January 2004 onwards should be considered for the purposes of pay fixation, continuity of service, seniority, and retiral benefits despite subsequent regularization in 2010?

The Court applied the principle of non-discrimination and the protection of past service established in Vajiben Ranabhai Makdiya v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No. 1149 of 2023

if employees are initially appointed on a regular scale against an advertisement and later undergo a second selection process for regularization, their earlier services cannot be "wiped out" or treated as fresh appointments to their disadvantage

the benefits of past service must be conferred if the employee has remained in continuous service since the initial appointment

The Court noted that the facts of the present case were identical to the Vajiben case, involving the same District Panchayat and appointment dates

The Court reasoned that the petitioners' participation in the 2010 recruitment process was a formality for regularization and should not be used to treat their appointment as "fresh"

It rejected the State’s contention regarding delay, noting that the petitioners only realized the disadvantage when their past service was excluded from benefit calculations

By applying the Vajiben ratio, the Court determined that since the petitioners cleared the recruitment process and served continuously since 2004, they were entitled to have that period counted for seniority and retiral benefits

The Court further accepted the petitioners’ clarification that the immediate relief sought was notional (pay fixation and seniority) rather than immediate monetary arrears

The court directed the respondent authorities to treat the petitioners’ service as continuous for pay fixation, seniority, promotion, and retiral/terminal benefits on a notional basis