Continuous pre-regularization ad hoc service must be counted toward pensionary benefits and eligibility for Old Pension Scheme.

In brief

The question

1. Whether ad hoc service rendered without break, followed by regular appointment in the same discipline, entitles employees to count such service toward pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, upholding the Tribunal's judgment.

It also directed

It held that the Respondents are entitled to count their ad hoc service toward pensionary benefits and are therefore eligible for the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

The Court reaffirmed that the finality of a High Court judgment is not diluted by an SLP dismissal that leaves the question of law open.

01Facts

The Respondents are Professors at AIIMS who were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis between 1997 and 1999.

p. 1

They continued in these roles without any service break until 2005, when they were regularly appointed to the same posts following a competitive selection process under Advertisement 03/2005 (FC).

p. 2

The Respondents sought to count their continuous ad hoc service toward pensionary benefits to qualify for the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), which was applicable at the time of their initial ad hoc appointments.

p. 2

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled in favor of the Respondents, prompting AIIMS to challenge the decision via this writ petition.

pp. 1-2

02Issues

i.1. Whether ad hoc service rendered without break, followed by regular appointment in the same discipline, entitles employees to count such service toward pensionary benefits under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

p. 2 · ¶ 5

ii.2. Whether a High Court judgment loses its precedential value when the Supreme Court dismisses a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against it while "leaving the question of law open".

p. 3 · ¶ 8

03Law Applied

The Court relied on the principle that continuous temporary or ad hoc service followed by regularisation without interruption must be counted as qualifying service for pension.

p. 2 · ¶ 6

It applied the precedent of Dr. Neelam Aggarwal v. UOI, where the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal and the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld similar claims for PGIMER doctors.

p. 2

When the Supreme Court leaves a question of law open while dismissing an SLP, the underlying High Court judgment remains final and binding on coordinate benches of the same or lower courts.

pp. 3-4

The Court also cited S.D. Jayaprakash v. UOI and Dr. Yoginder Gupta v. UOI regarding the counting of pre-regularisation service for pension.

pp. 6-9

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 32

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the facts of the present case were identical ("on all fours") to the Dr. Neelam Aggarwal case.

p. 3

The Court reasoned that "leaving the question of law open" only means the Supreme Court is not binding itself to the ratio; however, the High Court’s judgment remains a binding precedent for all subordinate tribunals and coordinate benches.

p. 5 · ¶ 28

Since the Respondents had served continuously from their original ad hoc appointments until their regularisation in the same discipline without any gap, the Court found the legal requirement for counting qualifying service was satisfied.

p. 2 · ¶ 3 · p. 10 · ¶ 11

05Holding

The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine, upholding the Tribunal's judgment.

p. 10

It held that the Respondents are entitled to count their ad hoc service toward pensionary benefits and are therefore eligible for the Old Pension Scheme (OPS).

p. 2 · ¶ 6 · p. 10 · ¶ 11

The Court reaffirmed that the finality of a High Court judgment is not diluted by an SLP dismissal that leaves the question of law open.

p. 6 · ¶ 28

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF