Continuous Temporary Service Exceeding Fifteen Years Must Be Treated as Pensionable Under Bihar Pension Rules.

The petitioner was appointed as a Sukani on 09.07.1981 under the work-charged establishment of the Road Construction Department, National Highways, Bihar.

He was regularized against a sanctioned post on 30.03.2015 and superannuated on 31.10.2019.

Post-retirement, the respondent Department issued an order (Memo No. 3258 dated 22.04.2025) treating the petitioner as a work-charged employee until 2015, thereby refusing to count his service from 1981 for full pensionary benefits.

The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that his service from the initial date of joining (1981) should be counted for retiral benefits, particularly as the Department had previously granted him time-bound promotion benefits from 1991.

1. Whether the continuous service rendered by an employee in a temporary or officiating capacity for over fifteen years can be treated as pensionable despite a late regularization?

2. Whether the impugned order (Memo No. 3258) is legally sustainable given it ignored the provisions of Rules 58 and 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950?

The court primarily applied Rules 58 and 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950.

Rule 58 sets general conditions for pensionable service, while Rule 59 acts as an enabling provision and an exception to Rule 58.

The court relied on the precedent set by the Division Bench in The Registrar General, Patna High Court v. Ram Vyas Dubey Ors. (LPA No. 198 of 2016), which established that continuous temporary or officiating service for more than fifteen years is liable to be treated as pensionable, even if the servant was not confirmed on a substantive post, as per Government Memo No. Pen-1024/69/11779 F. dated 12.08.1969.

The court found that the Respondent No. 2 (Additional Chief Secretary) failed to consider the statutory mandate of Rules 58 and 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules while rejecting the petitioner's claim.

Although the State argued that the grant of time-bound promotion in 1991 was a "clerical error" or "inadvertence," the court noted that the Department had neither withdrawn nor nullified that promotion order through a formal process; a mere statement in a counter-affidavit was insufficient to invalidate a standing order.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner had served continuously since 1981, the legal principle established in Ram Vyas Dubey applied, making his long-term temporary service eligible for pension calculation.

The failure of the authority to address these specific rules and facts rendered the impugned order unsustainable and non-speaking.

The court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of Rules 58 and 59 of the Bihar Pension Rules and the cited judicial precedents. The authority is required to grant the petitioner a hearing and pass a reasoned, speaking order within three months, ensuring that all consequential and admissible retiral benefits are paid upon such determination.