MP HC Counts Lab Technician’s Decades Of Ad-Hoc Service As Regular, Orders Pension And Retiral Benefits

The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Technician on an ad hoc basis by order dated 31 December 1985 and received a regular pay scale. He continued in service, received time-scale benefits, and his department forwarded a proposal seeking his regularisation in 2012; no final decision followed. He was due to superannuate on 30 November 2026.

The State opposed regularisation, arguing that ad hoc appointment and long service alone created no right to regularisation, particularly absent a sanctioned post. The petitioner sought regularisation and consequential service and pensionary benefits under Article 226 of the Constitution

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief.

Under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, regularisation is not a matter of right; however, paragraph 53 permits consideration, as a one-time measure, of irregularly appointed (not illegally appointed) qualified persons who have served for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts without court or tribunal protection.

The judgment also referred to The State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 187, which held that the State should not rely on the ad hoc character of service to deny pensionary benefits after taking an employee’s services for 30 years.

The Court additionally referred to the M.P. Higher Education Collegiate Rules, 1987, stating that the petitioner’s services were required to be regularised from his initial appointment date

The Court accepted that the petitioner had been appointed ad hoc, but considered that he was qualified, had continued in service for decades, and had received a regular pay scale and successive time-scale benefits.

It found no basis to distinguish his case from Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, particularly given the State’s prolonged use of his services and the failure to act on the regularisation proposal. Applying the principles in Uma Devi and the cited rules and precedent, the Court concluded that the petitioner should be treated as regular from his appointment date and receive the corresponding service and pensionary benefits

The respondents were directed to comply within three months of receiving the certified order, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable as specified in the order. The Court also awarded the petitioner costs/compensation of ₹50,000