Delayed posting cannot deprive adjusted employees of pension; qualifying service begins from the adjustment resolution.

The private respondents were appointed as contractual “Compilors” by the Regional Deputy Director of Census Operations, Deoghar region, Bihar, for the period from 10.06.1991 to 31.08.1992.

Their services were terminated upon closure of the Regional Tabulation Office with effect from 01.09.1992.

In 2004, the Government of Jharkhand issued Resolution/Memo No. 5021 dated 03.11.2004 to accommodate 602 retrenched census employees against vacant Class III and Class IV posts under the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, without creating additional posts.

The respondents were subsequently adjusted and joined their respective posts between 24.08.2010 and 23.06.2012.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed consideration of their representations.

The State rejected the claim by order dated 07.02.2024, treating the dates of actual joining as the dates of appointment and holding that they had not completed the minimum ten years of qualifying service under Rule 145 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000.

The learned Single Judge thereafter directed fixation of pension under the OPS. The State preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Whether the contractual service rendered by the respondents from 10.06.1991 to 31.08.1992 could be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits?

Whether the respondents’ adjustment pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2004 amounted to regularisation or continuation of their earlier service, thereby entitling them to the Old Pension Scheme?

Whether, despite their actual joining between 2010 and 2012, the respondents could be treated as being in service from 03.11.2004 for the purpose of completing ten years of qualifying service?

Whether denial of pension to the respondents, while similarly situated census employees who received earlier joining orders became eligible for pension, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

The Court applied Rules 56, 58, 61 and 145 of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000: qualifying service ordinarily commences from the date of assuming charge of the first appointed post; pension requires substantive and permanent employment and service against a permanent establishment; and a minimum of ten years’ qualifying service is required for pension.

Relying on Rashi Mani Mishra & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 509, the Court held that service rendered before substantive regularisation cannot automatically be counted for service benefits where regularisation occurs under a prescribed statutory procedure.

Relying on Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharati Corpn. of India v. Magi H. Desai, (2023) 18 SCC 705, it held that casual or contractual service cannot ordinarily be counted for pension in the absence of a departmental scheme permitting such computation.

However, the Court also applied the constitutional equality principles under Articles 14 and 16, holding that similarly situated employees could not be treated unequally because of delay attributable to the Government in issuing posting orders.

The Court rejected the respondents’ contention that their contractual census service from 1991 to 1992 constituted qualifying pensionable service.

Their contractual engagement had expired, their termination had not been invalidated, and the 2004 Government Resolution merely provided for their adjustment against available vacancies; it did not regularise their earlier contractual service.

Accordingly, Rashi Mani Mishra did not support counting the pre-regularisation contractual period, and Magi H. Desai reinforced the conclusion that such service could not be counted absent an applicable scheme.

Nevertheless, the Court found that the Government had decided to accommodate the respondents as early as 03.11.2004, while their actual posting orders were issued only between 2010 and 2012 due to the gradual availability of vacancies.

Some similarly situated employees had received joining orders in 2007 and had consequently completed ten years of qualifying service, whereas the respondents were denied pension solely because of the Government’s delay.

Since the respondents were not responsible for the delayed postings, treating the actual joining dates as determinative would produce unconstitutional discrimination under Articles 14 and 16.

The Court therefore adopted 03.11.2004—the date of the Government Resolution—as the deemed commencement date for calculating the ten-year qualifying period, without treating the earlier 1991–1992 contractual service as pensionable service.

However, for the limited purpose of determining eligibility for pension, the respondents were to be treated as being in service from 03.11.2004, enabling them to satisfy the ten-year qualifying-service requirement.

The appellants were directed to fix and release their pension under the law applicable on 03.11.2004, effectively granting them the benefit of the OPS.

The Single Judge’s order was set aside to that extent, and the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of.