Prior daily-wage service paid from contingency funds counts as qualifying pensionable service.

The petitioner was initially appointed as a daily-wage employee in 1982 and his services were regularized by order dated 14 February 1988.

He continued in service until his retirement on 31 May 2020.

Although pension and gratuity were sanctioned, the respondents excluded the period of service rendered before regularization from the petitioner’s qualifying service, thereby reducing his pensionary benefits.

The petitioner sought a direction to count his entire service from the date of his initial daily-wage appointment for calculating pension and other retiral dues, relying inter alia on the decision in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh .

The State contended that only service rendered after regularization in 1988 could be counted for pension.

Whether the period of service rendered by the petitioner as a daily-wage/work-charged employee before regularization is liable to be counted as qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits?

Whether the petitioner is entitled to reconsideration and recalculation of his pension and retiral dues by including his pre-regularization service?

The Court applied Rule 12(2) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which provides that qualifying service commences from the date on which a Government servant first assumes charge of a post to which he is appointed substantively, officiatingly, or temporarily.

The Court relied principally on Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2019) 10 SCC 516, wherein the Supreme Court held that service rendered before regularization as a work-charged, contingency-paid, or non-pensionable employee may be counted towards qualifying service for pension, and that excluding such service through an arbitrary classification is discriminatory and irrational.

The petitioner also relied on V. Sukumaran v. State of Kerala , (2020) 8 SCC 106, State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastav , AIR 2013 SC 3383, and Arun Bende v. State of M.P. , though the operative reasoning was based on Rule 12(2) and Prem Singh .

The Court found that the petitioner had entered service as a daily-wage employee in 1982, was subsequently regularized in 1988, and was paid from the contingency fund during his pre-regularization service.

Applying Rule 12(2), the Court held that qualifying service may commence from the date on which the employee first assumes charge, even where the initial appointment is temporary or non-substantive.

Following Prem Singh , the Court reasoned that service rendered in a work-charged or contingency-paid capacity cannot be excluded merely because regularization occurred later, particularly when the employee continuously served the department and was ultimately regularized.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s pre-1988 service was required to be considered for determining pensionary entitlement.

The respondents were directed to reconsider and calculate the petitioner’s pensionary benefits by including that pre-regularization service and to complete the exercise within 90 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.