Continuous contractual service prior to regularisation qualifies as service for pension and seniority benefits.

The Respondents (Ayurved Chikitsaks) were initially engaged by the State of Rajasthan on a "contractual basis" following advertisements in 2001 and 2003

They served continuously for over a decade under the Rajasthan Rural Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973, and later the Rules of 2008

After several rounds of litigation regarding recruitment criteria, the Respondents were substantively appointed to regular posts via orders dated 25.08.2015

The State subsequently subjected them to a fresh two-year probation period on fixed remuneration and refused to count their prior decade of service for pensionary benefits, privilege leave, or qualifying service

The learned Single Bench partly allowed the Respondents' writ petition, directing the State to include their past services for pension and leave

1. Whether services rendered on a contractual basis prior to substantive appointment can be counted as "qualifying service" for pensionary benefits under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996

2. Whether employees who served continuously for over a decade can be subjected to a fresh two-year probation period upon substantive appointment

3. Whether such employees are entitled to credit for privilege leave for their pre-regularization service under Rule 95 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951

Rule 12(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, which mandates that qualifying service commences from the date a Government servant takes charge of a post to which they are first appointed, whether substantively, officiating, or in a temporary capacity

Rule 3(r) regarding "qualifying service"

Rule 2(e), which generally excludes contract persons unless the contract provides otherwise

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedents in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi (2023) and K.S. Pundir v. State of H.P. (2004), which establish that long-term contractual service followed by regularization without interruption must be counted for pension.

Rule 95 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 was applied to allow credit for previous duty when a temporary employee is appointed substantively

The Court rejected the State's argument that the "contractual" label barred pensionary benefits under Rule 2(e), holding that such rules must be interpreted harmoniously with Rule 12(b)

The Court found that the Respondents were engaged via a selection process against sanctioned posts and were paid from the Consolidated Fund, making their service "temporary" or "officiating" in substance, regardless of the "contractual" nomenclature

Since there was no break in service between the initial 2002/2004 engagements and the 2015 substantive appointments, the prior service qualified for pension

On the issue of probation, the Court held that the purpose of probation—evaluating suitability—had already been satisfied through over ten years of continuous satisfactory service; thus, imposing a fresh probation in 2015 was a technicality that defeated substantive justice

Under Rule 95 of the RSR, 1951, the Court determined that the Respondents functioned as "temporary employees" and were thus entitled to privilege leave credits

the action of subjecting the Respondents to a new probation period in 2015 was invalid as they had already demonstrated suitability during their long-term service

the Respondents are entitled to privilege leave for the entire period from their initial joining

The Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the Single Bench judgment directing the State to make necessary pay fixations and grant arrears