Suspension does not interrupt qualifying service for pension purposes.

The petitioner’s husband was appointed as a Junior Clerk on a regular basis on 30 July 1985 and retired on superannuation on 31 May 2020. He was suspended on 3 September 2007 and reinstated on 16 September 2008. He died on 22 October 2022 without having received pension.

On the petitioner’s representation for family pension, the authorities counted only 11 years, 8 months and 15 days of service from the reinstatement period, excluding service before reinstatement. The petitioner challenged that calculation and sought family pension based on her husband’s service from 30 July 1985 to retirement.

The State defended the exclusion by relying on Rule 54-B of the U.P. Fundamental Rules and Regulation 422 of the Civil Service Regulations.

Rule 54-B of the U.P. Fundamental Rules concerns the pay and allowances payable during suspension and whether the suspension period is to be treated as duty upon reinstatement or retirement; under sub-rule (2), where a suspended government servant dies before disciplinary or court proceedings conclude, the period from suspension to death is treated as duty for all purposes, subject to adjustment of subsistence allowance.

Regulation 422 of the Civil Service Regulations permits the pension-sanctioning authority to condone specified interruptions between periods of permanent or temporary service, subject to conditions including that the interruption be beyond the employee’s control, that the relevant preceding service be of the prescribed duration, and that the interruption not exceed one year.

The Court held that suspension does not, by itself, constitute an interruption or break in service.

The authorities treated the period before reinstatement as an interruption and relied on Rule 54-B and Regulation 422 to exclude it from qualifying service. The Court held that this reasoning misconstrued both provisions: Rule 54-B addresses the treatment and payment of benefits during suspension, while Regulation 422 concerns interruptions between spells of service.

Since the employee’s suspension did not itself break the continuity of his service, the pre-reinstatement period could not be excluded on that basis. The Court therefore found the pension calculation to be founded on an erroneous premise.

It directed Respondent No. 2 to refix the petitioner’s family pension by counting her husband’s service from 30 July 1985 to 31 May 2020. The recalculation was to be completed within two months of service of a certified copy of the judgment, with payment to follow within one month thereafter.