Continuous Ad-hoc Service in Regular Pay Scale Mandates Regularization and Pensionary Benefits Upon Superannuation

The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Technician on an ad-hoc basis on March 19, 1985, following a selection process.

Despite the ad-hoc nomenclature, he was granted a regular pay scale, dearness allowance, and subsequent benefits including Kramonnati and three time-scale pay upgrades in 2009, 2010, and 2015.

He served for 39 years until his superannuation on July 31, 2024.

Post-retirement, departmental recommendations for his regularization were made by respondent No. 5 to respondent No. 4 to enable pension benefits, but no final decision was taken.

The State opposed the petition, contending that ad-hoc service does not confer a vested right to regularization and that the petitioner approached the court only after retirement.

1. Whether a person who served for 39 years on an ad-hoc basis but received a regular pay scale and periodic promotions is entitled to regularization for the purpose of pensionary benefits post-superannuation

2. Whether the State can deny retiral benefits by citing the technicality of "non-regularization" despite the employee having rendered continuous service in a sanctioned post

The court primarily applied the Constitution Bench judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, which distinguishes between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments, mandating a one-time regularization exercise for qualified persons in sanctioned posts with over 10 years of service.

The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong by denying pension to an ad-hoc employee who served for 30 years as held in The State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187.

M.P. Higher Education Collegiate Rules, 1987, and the precedent in Sangeeta Saxena v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 26158/2022) regarding identical service conditions.

The Court observed that there was no functional difference between the petitioner’s duties and those of a regular employee, as he earned regular increments and pay scales throughout his 39-year tenure.

Applying the Uma Devi standard, the Court found the appointment was "irregular" (not illegal), and the petitioner was duly qualified.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was granted a regular pay scale at the time of appointment in 1985, he effectively rendered regular service.

Citing Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, the Court held it "unreasonable" and contrary to the principles of a Welfare State for the respondents to extract work for nearly four decades and then deny pensionary benefits based on the technical absence of a formal regularization order.

The Court directed the respondents to: (i) treat the petitioner’s service as regular and pensionable from March 19, 1985; (ii) grant all consequential and retiral benefits, including arrears of pension from July 2024; and (iii) issue the PPO and GPO within three months.

The Court awarded costs/compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner, with a default interest clause of 6% per annum for delayed compliance.