Calculation of Work-Charge Service for Pension on Five-to-One Year Ratio Upheld in Regularization Cases

The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee in the Public Works Department (PWD) in 1984 and later appointed as a Road Roller Driver in the work-charge establishment on July 15, 1985.

His services were regularized on July 31, 2014, and he subsequently retired on June 30, 2020.

The petitioner filed the writ seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to count his entire length of service from his initial work-charge appointment (1985) until retirement (2020) for the purpose of calculating pensionary and retiral benefits.

The State contended that as per the prevailing resolution and Supreme Court precedents, work-charge service is calculated at a ratio of 5:1 for pensionary benefits.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to have his entire period of service in the work-charged establishment counted as regular service for the purpose of calculating pension and other retiral benefits?

2. Whether the calculation of five years of work-charge service as equivalent to one year of regular service is legally sustainable?

The court primarily relied on the State’s Finance Department Resolution No. 10710 dated October 17, 2023.

This resolution was issued in compliance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 3157 of 2023, which established that for the purpose of pension and gratuity, five years of work-charge service shall be treated as equivalent to one year of regular service.

This specific classification and calculation method was previously challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court.

The court evaluated the petitioner’s claim against the statutory resolution and judicial precedents provided by the State. It noted that the petitioner’s service was regularized in 2014 following Finance Department guidelines.

Upon his retirement in 2020, his pension was sanctioned by applying Resolution No. 10710, which implements the 5:1 ratio for counting work-charge service towards pensionary benefits.

The court observed that the respondent authorities had already calculated and settled the petitioner's dues based on this upheld legal framework.

Furthermore, the State confirmed that the General Provident Fund (GPF) had also been settled using the same proportional treatment.

The writ petition was disposed of without any further instructions or directions to the State.