Pension authorities must assess daily-wage service claims by examining the legality of the initial engagement.

The petitioner was engaged as a daily-wage Driver on 29 December 1988, regularised with effect from 5 April 1994, and retired on 30 April 2021.

The respondents excluded his pre-regularisation service from the qualifying service used to calculate his retiral benefits

He relied on Rajendra Korekar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No. 16463 of 2021, decided on 7 February 2024, in which daily-wage service was directed to be counted under Rule 12(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976

The State opposed the claim, submitting that the petitioner had not shown that his initial appointment followed the prescribed selection process

1. Whether the petitioner’s daily-wage service from 29 December 1988 to 5 April 1994 could be counted as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits under Rule 12(2) of the 1976 Rules

2. Whether the petitioner had established that his initial engagement was made in accordance with, or in substantial compliance with, the prescribed selection process so as to warrant treatment comparable to the employee in Rajendra Korekar

Rule 12(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 was applied as the governing provision for determining qualifying service.

In Rajendra Korekar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, the High Court held that service rendered in a temporary capacity, including daily-wage service, was to be counted as qualifying service under Rule 12(2), and directed that the employee’s daily-wage period be included for pension and other retiral dues

The present Court directed the competent authority to consider whether the petitioner was identically placed and to apply Rajendra Korekar accordingly

The Court recognised that Rajendra Korekar supports counting daily-wage service as qualifying service, but the petitioner’s entitlement depended on whether his initial engagement was made in accordance with, or in substantial compliance with, the prescribed selection process

The service book established the date and nature of his engagement, but the Court did not finally determine the selection-process question or direct immediate recalculation of benefits

It instead left that factual and legal assessment to Respondent No. 4, requiring a reasoned decision in light of Rajendra Korekar

The petitioner may submit a detailed representation, with supporting material, within three weeks; Respondent No. 4 must pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of its submission, applying Rajendra Korekar.

If the petitioner is found to be identically placed, consequential benefits must be granted within that period; otherwise, reasons must be recorded