Chhattisgarh HC Orders Retired Polytechnic Employee’s 1989 Ad Hoc Service Counted Toward Pension Despite 19-Day Break

The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Assistant on an ad hoc basis with effect from 1 May 1989, and his services were regularised on 24 January 1995.

After retiring as a Technical Assistant on 30 September 2024, he sought to have his ad hoc service counted towards qualifying service for pension.

The respondents objected because there had been a 19-day break in service and asked him to consent to pension being calculated only from the date of regularisation.

The petitioner relied on the State Government’s circular dated 5 March 2008, contending that a break of no more than one month did not interrupt continuity of service.

Sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 2 of the State Government circular dated 5 March 2008 provides that continuity of service for daily-wage or ad hoc employees may be recognised where the total break in a particular year does not exceed one month; a strike period is not treated as a break in service.

The Court also relied on *Punjab School Education Board and Another v. Satnam Singh and Others*, Civil Appeal No. 6865 of 2022, decided on 8 September 2026, which it described as holding that pre-regularisation contract, ad hoc or daily-wage service must be counted as qualifying service for retiral and pension benefits, and that notional, artificial or administrative breaks, or breaks resulting from court orders, should be disregarded.

The respondents admitted that the petitioner’s break in service was 19 days. Applying the 5 March 2008 circular, the Court found that this break was below the one-month threshold and therefore could not, by itself, defeat continuity of the petitioner’s ad hoc service. The respondents’ objection on that ground was consequently unsustainable.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court decision concerning pre-regularisation service and breaks, and held that the petitioner’s claim should be considered under the applicable rules and circular.

The respondents were directed to revise the benefits and release any consequential arrears within three months of receiving a copy of the order.