Employees Regularised Before 1 April 2003 May Count Qualifying Past Service Under Rule 11(4)

The first respondent was appointed as a part-time teacher in 1972, underwent teacher training in September 1995, and had her services regularised as a full-time teacher with effect from 12 September 1995.

She retired on 31 May 2005.

In 2018, she sought the benefit of Rule 11(4), relying on the Full Bench decision reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705; the request was rejected, and the Single Judge allowed her writ petition.

The State appealed, arguing that she had not established full-time employment before regularisation and that her claim was delayed.

Whether the first respondent was entitled to the benefit under Rule 11(4), given that her services were regularised before 1 April 2003.

Whether the delay in seeking the benefit after retirement warranted interference with the Single Judge’s order or affected the monetary relief.

Rule 11(4), introduced by G.O.Ms.No.41, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 9 February 2010, was the relevant provision.

The Court applied the Full Bench ruling reported in 2019 (6) CTC 705, which held that persons whose services were regularised before 1 April 2003 may qualify for the Rule 11(4) benefit, subject to the conditions stipulated in that Rule.

The Court found it undisputed that the respondent’s services were regularised in 1995, before the 1 April 2003 cut-off, and held that the Full Bench ruling therefore applied.

Although the State disputed whether she had been employed full-time before regularisation, it produced no material to substantiate that objection.

The Court consequently found no basis to disturb the Single Judge’s decision.

However, because the respondent sought the benefit only after retirement, the Court limited the relief by denying interest on the monetary benefits.

The respondent was not entitled to interest on the monetary benefits payable to her.

No costs were ordered.