Qualifying Service for Pension Includes Past Period Rendered Prior to Permanent Status and Regularization.

The applicant, Abdul Karim Bhat (aged 79), was initially engaged as a daily wager on September 15, 1966, in JK Industries Limited (JKI).

His services were regularized as a Khadmatgar in 1994 under SRO 64.

In 2001, he was deputed to the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department and subsequently joined the State Consumer Protection Commission, opting to forego his CPF benefits from JKI.

Upon his superannuation on June 30, 2005, Respondent No. 5 (Accountant General) authorized a pension of ₹1,964/- PM instead of the claimed ₹2,591/- PM.

The applicant contends that his entire service from 1966 to 2005 (39 years) should count as qualifying service under Article 177 of the J&K CSR.

Despite recommendations from the Director of Finance and JKI to rectify the calculation and recognize him as "quasi-permanent" effective from 1994, his claims were rejected via communications dated October 26, 2021, and June 11, 2025.

1. Whether the entire period of service from 15.09.1966 to 30.06.2005 constitutes qualifying service for pension under Article 177 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956.

2. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicant’s request for re-fixation of pension is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Article 177 of the J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956, which governs the determination of qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

J&K Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1961, regarding the declaration of "quasi-permanent" status for the purpose of settling pension cases.

Government Order No. 26-F of 1994 and SRO 64 of 1994 concerning the regularization of daily wagers.

The Tribunal observed that the applicant had a long-standing grievance regarding the computation of his pension, specifically the failure of the respondents to include his prior service and his status as a quasi-permanent employee in the final calculation.

The applicant highlighted that internal communications between the Managing Director of JKI and the Respondent Department had already acknowledged a potential mistake in the pension authorization (directing a re-fixation at ₹2,591/- PM).

The Tribunal determined that the administrative authorities had not properly finalized the representation in light of the specific Circular dated 17.11.2023, which mandates the expedited settlement of pension cases for employees not yet declared quasi-permanent.

The respondents are ordered to consider and decide the applicant's case for re-fixation of pension by passing a speaking and reasoned order within four weeks; the impugned communications were effectively bypassed to allow for this fresh administrative review.