Inclusion of service rendered on fixed pay basis for computation of pensionary benefits post-regularization.

The eleven petitioners were appointed as "School Mothers" on a fixed-pay basis between 1990 and 2009.

Their services were subsequently regularized, and all petitioners eventually retired from service.

Upon superannuation, the petitioners discovered that their pensionary benefits were computed without accounting for the period of service rendered on a fixed-pay basis.

Petitioners No. 1, 10, and 11 served advocate notices to the respondents in early 2026 seeking the inclusion of this period, but these representations remained undecided.

The remaining petitioners sought liberty to file similar representations. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking a direction for a time-bound disposal of their grievances.

1. Whether the service rendered by the petitioners on a fixed-pay basis prior to regularization is liable to be counted for the computation of pensionary benefits.

2. Whether the Court should direct the State-respondents to dispose of the petitioners' pending and prospective representations within a stipulated timeframe.

The Court acted upon the administrative law principle of "reasoned decisions," requiring authorities to consider and dispose of legal representations within a reasonable timeframe.

The judgment pertains to the interpretation of service rules and pension regulations concerning "qualifying service" for retirement benefits.

It further relies on the procedural principle of disposing of writ petitions at the motion stage when the respondents express "no objection" to a time-bound direction for administrative review.

The Court observed that the primary grievance was the exclusion of fixed-pay service periods during the calculation of pensionary benefits following the petitioners' retirement.

Rather than adjudicating the merits of the pension claim at this stage, the Court noted that several representations were already pending without resolution.

Given that the learned Addl. G.A. for the State-respondents raised no objection to a time-bound direction, the Court determined that the most appropriate remedy was to mandate the respondents to apply their minds to the petitioners' claims.

By requiring "reasoned decisions," the Court ensured that the administration must transparently address whether the fixed-pay service counts toward pension under existing service laws.

The Court directed the State-respondents to dispose of the advocate notices served by Petitioner Nos. 1, 10, and 11 within four weeks from the receipt of the order by way of a reasoned decision.

The remaining petitioners were granted liberty to submit their representations within seven days, which the respondents must also dispose of within four weeks of receipt.

The Court further ordered that the decisions be communicated to the petitioners without delay, granting them liberty to approach the appropriate forum again if their grievances persist.