Pre-absorption government service must count as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The original petitioner’s husband was appointed as a work-charge Technical Assistant in the Irrigation Department on 26 June 1967.

Upon creation of the Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation, employees of the Irrigation Department and District Panchayats were transferred to the Corporation with effect from 1978.

Government Resolution dated 14 October 1981 provided for options regarding absorption or repatriation and treated employees who had not exercised an option as continuing with the Corporation, while preserving their status as Government employees until the relevant date.

The petitioner’s husband continued with and ultimately retired from the Corporation.

The petitioner claimed that his service from 26 June 1967 to 14 October 1981 ought to be counted as qualifying service for pension and family pension.

During the writ proceedings, the original petitioner died on 25 March 2025; her children were substituted as legal heirs and the 34-day delay in filing the substitution application was condoned.

Whether the service rendered by the petitioner’s late husband in the Irrigation Department/District Panchayat before his transfer to and absorption in the Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation was required to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits?

Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when the claim concerned recurring pensionary and family-pension benefits?

Whether arrears of pension and family pension were required to be restricted to three years preceding the filing of the writ petition?

The Court applied Government Resolution dated 14 October 1981, under which transferred employees remained on deputation with the Corporation until absorption and their prior service was relevant for determining pensionary entitlement.

It relied on Narubha Mahobatsinh Jhala v. District Development Officer, SCA No. 6690 of 1989, affirmed in LPA No. 831 of 2000; Special Civil Application No. 5925 of 2001, affirmed in LPA No. 1552 of 2009; and SCA No. 16887 of 2014, affirmed in LPA No. 307 of 2017, holding that service rendered before and during deputation to the Corporation could be counted towards the requisite qualifying service.

The Court further applied the principles in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, that pensionary claims constitute continuing or recurring wrongs and may be entertained despite delay, although arrears are ordinarily restricted to three years; and R.S. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 259, that delay and laches are matters of judicial discretion rather than an inflexible rule.

Judicial discipline required the Single Judge to follow the earlier binding Division Bench decisions rather than the contrary coordinate-Bench decision in SCA No. 6490 of 2024.

The Court found that the petitioner’s husband was identically situated to employees covered by the earlier binding decisions.

Since the 1981 Resolution treated transferred employees as being on deputation until absorption, the period from 26 June 1967 to 14 October 1981 had to be treated as qualifying service for pension, notwithstanding that the employee subsequently retired from the Corporation.

The Court rejected the State’s reliance on delay because the claim related to pension and family pension, which are recurring benefits and did not affect the settled rights of third parties.

It also declined to restrict arrears to three years, reasoning that similarly situated employees had previously received benefits from the date of entitlement and that the State had not raised such a limitation in the earlier proceedings; the Court considered the objection barred by constructive res judicata.

The Court directed the respondents to treat the period from 26 June 1967 to 14 October 1981 as qualifying service for pension, calculate the pension payable to the deceased employee from retirement until his death, and thereafter calculate and regularly pay family pension to the legal heirs.

The respondents were directed to calculate and pay the arrears, subject to adjustment of any CPF amount already paid for the relevant period, after giving the petitioners an opportunity to dispute the calculation.

The judgment records directions for completion of the exercise and payment of arrears within the prescribed timelines, including the direction to complete the exercise within eight weeks from uploading of the judgment.

The substitution application was separately allowed and the delay was condoned.