Pre-regularisation seasonal or ad hoc service counts for pension eligibility, but not pension computation.

The petitioner was engaged as a Seasonal Collection Amin on 25 February 1984 and was subsequently appointed temporarily as a Collection Amin from 15 December 1991 to 28 February 1992. His temporary engagement was not extended thereafter. Pursuant to an interim order dated 25 February 1992 in an earlier writ petition, he continued as an ad hoc/temporary Collection Amin until January 2008.

His claim for regularisation was rejected, but this Court subsequently directed his re-engagement as Seasonal Collection Amin and consideration of his claim against the 35% quota applicable to Seasonal Collection Amins.

The petitioner was re-engaged as a Seasonal Collection Amin in 2012 and was ultimately regularised as a Collection Amin by order dated 3 September 2016; he joined on 5 September 2016, completed probation, and was confirmed on 27 November 2018.

He retired on 31 July 2019. The respondents rejected his claim for pensionary benefits on the ground that he had only approximately two years and ten months of regular service and that the old pension scheme was unavailable to him.

The present petition concerned pension and retiral dues, while the connected petition sought regularisation and became infructuous after regularisation was granted.

1. Whether the petitioner’s services rendered as Seasonal Collection Amin and ad hoc/temporary Collection Amin before regularisation could be counted for determining the qualifying service required for pension

2. Whether such pre-regularisation service could also be counted for calculating the quantum of pension and other retiral benefits

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to pensionary and retiral benefits despite having rendered less than ten years of regular service after regularisation

The Court applied the principles laid down in Prem Singh v. State of U.P., 2019 AIR SC 516, that long service rendered in a work-charged or analogous non-regular capacity cannot be wholly disregarded for determining eligibility for pension, particularly where the employee was subsequently regularised.

It also relied on Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 31155 of 2023, which clarified that pre-regularisation work-charged/ad hoc service may be counted only for determining qualifying service for pension and not for calculating the amount or quantum of pension; counting it for quantum would effectively amount to retrospective regularisation.

The Court further relied on the coordinate Bench decisions in Kaushal Kishore Chaubey v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 5817 of 2020, and Rajendra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 9522 of 2024, which recognised that services rendered as Seasonal Collection Amin may be considered for pensionary eligibility where the employee performed substantially similar duties and was subsequently regularised.

Accordingly, the governing distinction was between: (i) counting prior service to satisfy the minimum qualifying-service requirement; and (ii) calculating pensionary benefits only on the basis of regular service.

The Court found that the petitioner had rendered service as a Seasonal Collection Amin from 1984, as an ad hoc/temporary Collection Amin until 2008, again as a Seasonal Collection Amin from 2012, and thereafter as a regular Collection Amin from September 2016 until retirement in July 2019.

Applying Prem Singh as clarified by Uday Pratap Thakur, the Court held that the petitioner’s pre-regularisation service could not be ignored while determining whether he had completed the minimum ten years of qualifying service.

When the periods from 1984 to 2008 and from 2012 to 2016 were taken into account, the petitioner crossed the eligibility threshold for pension.

However, the Court rejected the broader proposition that the entire pre-regularisation period should determine the pension amount.

Since the petitioner held a regular appointment only from 5 September 2016 until 31 July 2019, the quantum of pension and retiral dues had to be calculated exclusively on that regular service.

The respondents were directed to calculate and pay the petitioner’s retiral dues and sanction his pension, treating him as eligible on the basis of his prior service, while calculating the amount only with reference to his regular service from 5 September 2016 to 31 July 2019, within eight weeks of communication of the order.

Writ-A No. 20364 of 2019 was accordingly disposed of.

The connected Writ-A No. 15905 of 2014, concerning regularisation, was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner had already been regularised.