Pre-regularization daily wage service qualifies for pension under the Old Pension Scheme upon subsequent employee regularization.

Respondents were appointed as daily wagers in the Garden and Water Departments of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) between 1991 and 1996

They were regularized in service in 2006, following the introduction of the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme (DCPS) on 01.11.2005

The employees filed complaints under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971, seeking permanency from the date they completed 240 days of service and the counting of that contractual period for pension and gratuity

The Industrial Court, Nagpur, rejected the claim for retrospective permanency due to delay but directed NMC to treat the date of completion of 240 days as the entry date for calculating pension and gratuity

NMC challenged these orders, contending that the employees were governed by the New Pension Scheme and that service against non-sanctioned posts could not be counted

1. Whether daily wagers appointed before 01.11.2005 but regularized after that date are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (Old Pension Scheme) or the DCPS (New Pension Scheme)

2. Whether service rendered as a daily wager/contractual employee against an unsanctioned post qualifies as pensionable service upon subsequent regularization

3. Whether employees are estopped from claiming past service benefits if they accepted regularization orders containing a waiver of such claims

The court primarily applied Rules 30, 38, and 57 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982

Rule 57, Note 1, provides that if an employee is paid from a contingency fund and subsequently regularized, half of their previous continuous service shall count for pension

Rule 38 (comparable to Rule 17 of the CCS Pension Rules) allows for the counting of contractual service followed by substantive appointment

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedents in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sheela Devi [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272] and S.D. Jayaprakash v. Union of India [2025 SCC OnLine SC 973], which mandate counting prior contractual service for pensionary benefits upon regularization

It further held, citing Syed Afzaluddin Ustad v. State of Maharashtra, that there can be no estoppel against law regarding statutory pension rights

The court reasoned that while regularization under Clause 4(c) of the Model Standing Orders requires a sanctioned post, the absence of such a post at the time of initial daily wage appointment does not preclude that period from being counted toward pension once the employee is regularized

Since the respondents were in continuous employment (albeit as daily wagers) prior to the 01.11.2005 cut-off, they are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme regardless of the date of formal regularization

The court distinguished Sanjay N. Revatkar v. Municipal Council, Wardha, noting that statutory rules and Supreme Court mandates in Sheela Devi override restrictive conditions in regularization orders

It clarified that if salary was paid from a contingency fund, half the service counts; if not, the entire service counts toward the qualifying period

It held that respondents are entitled to the Old Pension Scheme under the 1982 Rules and that their daily wager service must be included in the computation of pensionable service

NMC was directed to compute the pension for superannuated employees, including their daily wager duration, and clear all arrears by 30.06.2026

For those still in service, pension is to be paid upon superannuation in accordance with the 1982 Rules