Pre-absorption contract labour service does not count as qualifying service for pension.

The petitioner worked as a contract labourer from 1990 and was absorbed into the Electricity Board’s regular service with effect from 10 September 2007.

After retiring on superannuation on 31 August 2017, he sought regularisation from November 1992 and pensionary benefits by counting his pre-absorption service under a contractor.

The respondents opposed the claim, citing delay and laches and a Division Bench decision concerning the treatment of contract service for pension purposes.

The writ petition was dismissed.

1. Whether the petitioner’s service as a contract labourer before absorption could be counted towards regular service and pensionary benefits

2. Whether the petitioner could pursue that claim after absorption in 2007 and retirement in 2017, in light of delay and laches

The Court relied on the Division Bench’s decision in W.A.(MD) No. 785 of 2015, which held that service as a member of a society or as a contract labourer before appointment by the Board does not constitute qualifying service for pension absent a rule or specific order extending that benefit.

Under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, qualifying service commences when the employee takes charge of a post to which he is appointed substantively, in an officiating capacity, or temporarily; Rule 43(2) prescribes the qualifying-service requirement for pension.

The Division Bench further held that G.O.Ms.No.408, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 25 August 2009, and the Board’s Proceedings No. 31 dated 8 September 2011 applied to specified categories, including Nominal Muster Roll and temporary casual labourers, and not to contract labourers who were members of a society.

The Court distinguished Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 10 SCC 516, and S. Vijayalakshmi v. Government of Tamil Nadu, W.P. No. 19007 of 2024, as factually inapplicable.

The petitioner’s regular service began only upon his absorption on 10 September 2007; his earlier work under a contractor therefore could not be treated as qualifying Board service under the rule stated in the binding Division Bench decision.

The Court found that the petitioner’s claim was also stale: he had accepted absorption in 2007 and raised the claim after retiring in 2017, while the petition was filed in 2018.

The authorities relied on by the petitioner did not displace the Division Bench ruling because they concerned different facts or did not address the relevant delay issue.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.