Pension cannot be denied where regularisation was against a permanent vacancy, not a supernumerary post.

The petitioner, a retired truck driver, claimed to have joined the Public Works Department on 19 May 1994 and to have been brought into the regular establishment by office order dated 24 February 2011 against the vacancy caused by the superannuation of Shri Nalini Das, a truck driver. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30 September 2023 after approximately 29 years, 4 months and 11 days of service. Although his GPF and leave encashment were released, his pension and gratuity were not finalised.

The Accountant General returned the pension papers, seeking Government approval of the petitioner’s regularisation, relying on Office Memorandum No. FEC(I)452/99 dated 28 December 1999, which provided that supernumerary posts cease to exist when vacated.

The Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council maintained that the petitioner had been regularised against a sanctioned vacant post, while the PWD contended that the post was supernumerary.

The Court examined the service book of the predecessor, Shri Nalini Das, which contained no indication that his post was supernumerary and showed that he had been brought into the regular cadre and paid on the regular scale.

Whether the petitioner was inducted into the regular cadre against a permanent/sanctioned post or against a supernumerary post, so as to determine his entitlement to pensionary benefits.

Whether the Accountant General and the PWD were justified in withholding or returning the petitioner’s pension papers for want of Government approval of his regularisation.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to processing and release of pension, gratuity and other admissible retiral benefits.

The Court applied Office Memorandum No. FEC(I)452/99 dated 28 December 1999, which provides that a supernumerary post created to accommodate an employee ceases to exist upon the incumbent’s promotion, resignation, retirement or death.

The Court held that this principle applies only where the relevant post is shown to have been created as a supernumerary post. Conversely, where the service records establish that an employee was brought into the regular cadre against a regular or sanctioned vacancy, the employee’s qualifying regular service cannot be denied pensionary benefits merely on the basis of an unsupported assertion that the post was supernumerary.

The Court found no endorsement in Shri Nalini Das’s service book indicating that his post had been created on a supernumerary basis. Instead, the service book showed that he had initially been appointed temporarily but was subsequently brought into the regular cadre, placed on the regular scale of pay, and granted applicable pay revisions.

Since the petitioner was appointed in the vacancy arising from Nalini Das’s superannuation, and there was no evidence that the vacancy was linked to a supernumerary post, the Court rejected the PWD’s contention that the post ceased to exist under the 1999 Office Memorandum.

The Court therefore accepted that the petitioner had rendered regular service and that his pension papers could not be withheld on the stated ground.

The Accountant General and the PWD were directed to process the petitioner’s pensionary claims and other service benefits without further delay.

The PWD was directed to furnish any required approval in accordance with the Court’s findings, after which the Accountant General was directed to process the pension proposal without raising any further objection on the supernumerary-post issue.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.