Facts
The applicant was appointed as an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on an ad hoc basis on 12.08.1986
Source reference: p.3, para 2.1His services were regularized effective 01.11.1989
Source reference: p.3, para 2.2On 07.05.2013, the respondents issued a Statutory Form-24 (Certificate of Verification of Service) under Rule 32 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, certifying that his qualifying service commenced from 12.08.1986
Source reference: p.3-4, para 2.3However, upon his superannuation on 31.03.2021, the Pay and Accounts Office (PAO) excluded the ad hoc period (12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989) from his qualifying service, leading to a reduction in pensionary benefits
Source reference: p.4-5, para 2.4-2.5Issues
1. Whether the period of continuous ad hoc service followed by regularization without interruption is liable to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits
Source reference: p.13, para 92. Whether the respondents could reopen the determination of qualifying service after having issued a final certificate of verification under Rule 32 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
Source reference: p.22, para 19Law Applied
Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which defines qualifying service as commencing from the date a government servant takes charge of a post in a substantive, officiating, or temporary capacity
Source reference: p.14, para 11Rule 32, which mandates that the verification of service shall be treated as final and not reopened except under specific changes in rules
Source reference: p.22, para 19The principle from S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2025 INSC 594), established that pension is a deferred wage and contractual/ad hoc periods must be counted toward pension upon regularization
Source reference: p.15-17, para 15Ajendar Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. (2020) regarding the inclusion of ad hoc service rendered against sanctioned posts
Source reference: p.18, para 16Reasoning
The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s service was full-time, continuous, and rendered against a sanctioned post without any break from 1986 until retirement
Source reference: p.12, para 9The court rejected the respondents' argument that "ad hoc" service is categorically excluded by Rule 13, holding that once such service is regularized, it partakes in the character of qualifying service under a "substance-over-form" approach
Source reference: p.14-15, para 14-15Crucially, the Tribunal found that the Certificate issued in 2013 under Rule 32 had attained finality; the respondents could not arbitrarily "reopen" or re-interpret the service period at the stage of retirement in the absence of any change in the statutory rules
Source reference: p.22, para 19The Tribunal distinguished the M.H. Desai case on the grounds that the applicant was an ad hoc appointee against a post, not a casual or daily-wage worker
Source reference: p.21, para 17Holding
The Tribunal allowed the O.A., holding that the exclusion of the ad hoc period was illegal and contrary to Rule 32
The court directed the respondents to (i) re-calculate the pensionary benefits by including the service from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 in the qualifying service; (ii) issue a revised PPO; and (iii) pay interest on the arrears at the GPF rate from the due date until disbursement
Source reference: p.24, para 21The exercise must be completed within six weeks
Source reference: p.24, para 21Original Court PDF
Kiran M PatelvsCentral Administrative Tribunal (CAT)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in