Continuous pre-regularization ad hoc service constitutes qualifying service for pension and coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.

The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Research Officer in the Central Council for Research in Unani Medicine (CCRUM) on an ad hoc basis against a substantive vacancy in 1986.

Following a break in service, she was re-appointed in 1996 and continued on an ad hoc basis until her services were regularized in February 2004.

The respondent requested that her ad hoc service be counted toward her pensionary benefits, which would entitle her to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) instead of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) introduced on January 1, 2004.

Upon CCRUM’s refusal, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 91/2025.

On July 14, 2025, the Tribunal allowed the application, relying on a DOP&T Office Memorandum (OM) dated March 3, 2023, and prior judicial precedents.

The petitioners (Union of India) challenged the Tribunal’s order via the present writ petition.

1. Whether ad hoc service rendered continuously prior to regularization should be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of determining pensionary benefits and eligibility for the Old Pension Scheme.

2. Whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) given that her initial ad hoc appointment and recruitment process preceded the introduction of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on January 1, 2004.

The Court relied on the DOP&T Office Memorandum dated March 3, 2023, which allows employees appointed against vacancies advertised prior to December 22, 2003, to opt for the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (OPS).

The Court further applied the principle established by the Supreme Court in S.D. Jayaprakash v. UOI (2025 SCC OnLine SC 973) and State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272), which held that under Rule 17 of the Pension Rules, past service as a contractual/ad hoc employee must be taken into account for calculating pension upon regularization.

The Court cited GNCTD v. Dr. Yoginder Gupta (W.P.(C) 1265/2018), which affirmed that Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules permits counting temporary or officiating service if followed by substantive appointment without interruption.

It noted the Tribunal's finding that the respondent was appointed through public advertisements against substantive vacancies, making the appointment legal rather than "irregular".

Applying the Supreme Court's reasoning in S.D. Jayaprakash, the Court held that while contractual employees are initially excluded from pension rules, subsequent regularization triggers the application of those rules retrospectively for pension calculation.

The Court rejected the petitioners' argument that the matter was pending finality in the Supreme Court, observing that the current weight of legal authority—including the Division Bench's recent decision in Dr. Yoginder Gupta—favors counting continuous pre-regularization service towards pension.

Consequently, since the respondent's ad hoc service commenced well before the 2004 cutoff, she was entitled to the OPS.

The Court held that ad hoc service, when followed by regularization without interruption, must be counted toward pensionary benefits.

Accordingly, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) as her qualifying service effectively commenced prior to the introduction of the New Pension Scheme.