Counting of prior service for pensionary benefits and seniority despite breaks in service and salary deprivation.

The six petitioners were originally appointed as Lower Division Teachers between 1981 and 1983

Their services were subsequently discontinued but were later reinstated following orders from the State Administrative Tribunal

The petitioners, now retired from various positions including Head Master and Upper Division Teacher, sought to have their initial service period (prior to 1998) counted for the purpose of "paper seniority" and pensionary benefits

They contended that their case is identical to the matter of Shyam Lal Nayak & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 834/2018), decided on January 6, 2025, where similar relief was granted

1. Whether the previous service rendered by the petitioners prior to 1998 should be counted for the purpose of seniority and pensionary benefits in light of the circular dated July 5, 2007

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same relief granted by the High Court in the precedent case of Shyam Lal Nayak & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh

The Court relied on the principle of parity and the specific precedent established in Shyam Lal Nayak & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 834/2018)

That precedent interpreted appointment orders (specifically Clause-II) to mean that while a teacher might not be entitled to back-wages/salary for a break in service, the earlier service period must be counted for "all purposes" including pensionary benefits

The Court also referenced the State’s circular dated July 5, 2007, regarding the counting of services for seniority

The Court examined the petitioners’ claim that they were "similarly situated" to the litigants in the Shyam Lal Nayak case

Although the State counsel argued that the petitioners' specific appointment orders were not enclosed to verify terms and conditions, the Court noted that the core grievance involved the counting of past services for retirement benefits

By applying the reasoning from Shyam Lal Nayak, the Court determined that if the petitioners' appointment conditions mirrored those in the precedent—specifically regarding the recognition of earlier service periods—the respondent authorities are legally obligated to consider those periods for pensionary benefits

The Court directed the respondent authorities to verify the individual facts of the petitioners' service and, if found eligible, grant benefits in light of the Shyam Lal Nayak judgment. A decision on the representation must be taken within three months from the date of receipt of the order