Long-term irregular service followed by regularization constitutes qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The applicant was appointed as a Cameraman Grade-II on an ad-hoc basis at Doordarshan Kendra, Bengaluru, on March 11, 1993, following a departmental selection process necessitated by an acute shortage of staff

Although the Recruitment Rules required 100% direct recruitment through the UPSC, the applicant was selected through a public notice and practical test but remained on ad-hoc status for two decades

He failed the 1995 UPSC selection but continued to serve uninterruptedly until his services were regularized by Prasar Bharati on December 13, 2013

The applicant sought to have his ad-hoc service (1993–2013) counted as "qualifying service" for pensionary benefits, pay protection, and MACP, citing the Supreme Court judgment in S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India

The respondents contested this, citing his initial ad-hoc terms and failure in the UPSC exam

1. Whether the service rendered on an ad-hoc basis from 1993 to 2013 can be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits after regularization

2. Whether an appointment made through a departmental process against sanctioned posts, but not through the UPSC, constitutes an "illegal" or merely "irregular" appointment

The court primarily relied on the distinction between "irregular" and "illegal" appointments established in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, noting that irregular appointments of qualified persons against sanctioned posts can be regularized

It applied the principle from Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 10 SCC 516, which held that long-term work-charged/ad-hoc service must be counted toward qualifying service for pension

The court further invoked State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (2022) SCC Online SC 2004, asserting that the State cannot benefit from its own wrong by taking 30 years of service and then denying pension on "ad-hoc" grounds

Finally, it applied S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India (2025) SCC Online SC 973, emphasizing that the nature of work determines pension eligibility

The Tribunal found that the applicant's 1993 appointment was "irregular but not illegal" because it followed a structured departmental process (public notice, eligibility check, and tests) against sanctioned vacancies

The court rejected the respondents' argument that the applicant’s failure in the 1995 UPSC exam invalidated his service, noting that his continued employment for 20 years post-failure proved his functional competence and institutional necessity

Applying the Uma Devi framework, the Tribunal held that while regularization does not automatically relate back to the date of appointment for seniority, the State cannot sever continuity for pensionary purposes under Article 21

The court reasoned that pension is "deferred wages" and not a bounty; therefore, extracting two decades of labor without providing social security violates the principle of a "model employer" and constitutional morality

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the respondents to extend all consequential monetary benefits to the applicant as and when they arise, concluding that denying such recognition would be disproportionate, arbitrary, and a violation of the right to a dignified post-retirement life