Notional retrospective regularization is mandatory for pensionary benefits and recovery from Class-III/IV employees is impermissible.

The applicants were engaged as Daily Wagers in the Forest Department in the 1990s.

In O.A. 1317/2023, applicant Mohd. Rafiq Bhat was regularized as a Helper in 2019 following High Court directions.

Although the department initially granted him retrospective notional benefits and released arrears, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests later issued a recovery notice for ₹10,31,889/-, alleging the benefits were contrary to rules.

In O.A. 428/2024, applicant Abdul Hafiz Ganai, engaged in 1994 and disengaged in 2001, obtained a High Court ruling affirming his entitlement to regularization from 2001.

He was re-engaged in 2016 but denied notional service benefits from 2001, which affected his pensionary entitlements upon retirement in May 2024.

CP 368/2024 was filed due to the respondents' failure to comply with an interim order for provisional pension.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to notional retrospective regularization and service benefits from the date they completed seven years of continuous service under SRO-64 of 1994.

2. Whether the recovery of excess payments from a Class-IV employee (Bhat) is legally sustainable under the established principles of service law.

3. Whether the denial of pensionary benefits to a retired employee (Ganai) by excluding his past service is violative of Article 14 and 16.

SRO-64 of 1994 regarding the regularization of Daily Rated Workers.

State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, which mandates fair consideration for long-term daily wagers.

Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, establishing that officiating service counts toward seniority.

D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, which defines pension as a valuable property right rather than a bounty.

State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, which prohibit recovery from Class-III/IV or retired employees in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation.

The Tribunal observed that while regularization schemes like SRO-64 are typically prospective, judicial intervention is necessary to grant notional benefits to prevent "hostile discrimination" when administrative delays or litigation prevent timely regularization.

In Ganai’s case, since a Division Bench had already confirmed his eligibility from 2001, the department’s refusal to count that service for pension violated the principle of parity.

Regarding Bhat, the Tribunal held that the recovery of arrears was arbitrary because the benefits were granted by the competent authority without any fraud by the applicant; thus, Rafiq Masih protected him from such coercive recovery.

The Tribunal further noted that the department cannot take inconsistent stands by granting notional benefits to some similarly situated employees while denying them to others.

Respondents must re-fix Abdul Hafiz Ganai’s pension counting the notional service and release arrears within three months; the recovery order against Mohd. Rafiq Bhat is quashed, and any recovered amount must be refunded within three months.

The Tribunal allowed both Original Applications and closed the Contempt Petition as the interim directions merged into the final judgment.