Prior Service Counted for Seniority and Pensionary Benefits if Stipulated in Re-appointment Order.

The twenty-five petitioners were appointed as Lower Division Teachers between 1981 and 1983

Their services were subsequently discontinued but were later restored following orders from the State Administrative Tribunal

The petitioners seek to have their services rendered prior to their 1998 appointments counted for the purposes of "paper seniority" and pensionary benefits

They contend that their case is identical to that of Shyam Lal Nayak Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 834/2018), decided on January 6, 2025, where similar relief was granted

The State questioned the absence of original appointment orders to verify specific conditions of service

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their services prior to 1998 counted for the purpose of seniority and pensionary benefits in light of previous judicial precedents

2. Whether the respondent authorities are obligated to decide the petitioners' representations following the ratio laid down in the case of Shyam Lal Nayak

The Court relied on the legal principles established in Shyam Lal Nayak Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPS No. 834/2018), which held that if appointment orders (specifically Clause-II therein) stipulate that earlier services were considered, such service must be counted for all purposes except back-wages/salary

The principle ensures that administrative authorities cannot reject representations without considering the specific clauses of the original appointment or restoration orders

The Court observed that the primary grievance of the petitioners revolved around the non-consideration of their prior service years for post-retirement and seniority benefits

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of each individual petitioner due to the lack of enclosed appointment orders, the Court applied the procedural logic from Shyam Lal Nayak. It reasoned that if the petitioners' appointment conditions contained clauses similar to Clause-II of the 1997 orders mentioned in the precedent—which acknowledged prior service while denying back-salary—then the State is legally bound to count that period toward pensionary benefits

The Court effectively shifted the burden of factual verification to the respondent authorities to ensure consistency with existing case law

The Court ordered the respondent authorities to verify the facts and take a decision on the petitioners' claims in light of the Shyam Lal Nayak judgment within three months of receiving the order