Past Central Government service cannot count toward State pension without proving prescribed continuity conditions.

The petitioner was appointed as Senior Scientific Officer in the Central Forensic Science Laboratory after selection by the Union Public Service Commission and joined service in 1993.

After selection by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, he was appointed as Director, U.P. Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow, and joined on 21 August 2010 without an asserted break in service.

He was suspended on 4 September 2017 and compulsorily retired on 19 December 2017.

The State rejected his representation on 5 March 2024, holding that he had rendered only 7 years, 3 months and 28 days of service under the State Government and that Central Government service could not be counted.

The State contended that the petitioner had not proved technical resignation, prior permission, a No Objection Certificate, or the requisite service-book entry, and that his State appointment could not automatically be treated as a continuation of his Central service.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to count his previous service under the Central Government together with his subsequent service under the Uttar Pradesh Government for determining qualifying service for pension?

Whether the petitioner had established compliance with the conditions prescribed under the Office Memorandum/Government Order dated 31 March 1982, including technical resignation for administrative reasons, prior permission, and the requisite certification or service-book entry?

Whether pay protection, alleged parity with other former Directors, or the petitioner’s assertion of continuous service created an enforceable right to pension under the Old Pension Scheme?

The Court applied the conditional scheme under the Office Memorandum/Government Order dated 31 March 1982, under which previous Central or State Government service may be counted for pension only where the employee satisfies the prescribed conditions, including resignation from the former post for administrative reasons or to satisfy a technical requirement, joining the new post with proper permission, and obtaining a certificate with a corresponding entry in the service book.

The Court also considered the subsequent memoranda and Government Orders concerning apportionment and combination of pensionary service, but held that their benefit remained subject to the foundational conditions of the governing scheme.

Relying on R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106, the Court reiterated that the burden lies on the person asserting a fact or legal entitlement, and that mere affidavits or self-serving assertions do not discharge that burden.

The Court further held that pay fixation or pay protection and pension eligibility operate in distinct legal fields, and that pay-related benefits cannot independently confer entitlement to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme or override the applicable pension regime.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim depended principally on the 31 March 1982 Office Memorandum/Government Order, which was not an unconditional recognition of all prior service but required proof of technical resignation, proper permission, and certification by the competent authority.

Although the petitioner asserted that he had obtained a No Objection Certificate and tendered a technical resignation, those assertions were specifically denied by the State and were unsupported by any resignation letter, No Objection Certificate, acceptance order, certificate, or service-book entry.

Since the petitioner bore the burden of proving fulfillment of the conditions precedent, the Court held that he had failed to establish a legal basis for combining his Central and State service.

The Court also rejected reliance on pay protection and alleged discrimination, observing that neither could substitute for compliance with the pension rules or establish parity with similarly situated employees.

The Court therefore found no legal or factual basis to interfere with the administrative rejection of the pension claim.

His assertion of continuous service, unsupported by the requisite documentary evidence, did not create an enforceable right to pension or consequential benefits.

The writ petition challenging the order dated 5 March 2024 was accordingly dismissed.