Temporary service must be counted towards qualifying pension service where the employee is later regularised.

Kader Ali, the petitioner’s husband, worked as a daily-rated employee and master-roll worker in the Lower Damodar Construction Division before being regularized as a Khalasi.

A departmental memorandum recorded his master-roll service from 1 July 1982 to 12 March 1996 and subsequent service as a Khalasi until his retirement on 31 March 2005.

His regular service was considered insufficient for pension, leaving a shortfall of approximately two years and one month.

He died on 22 July 2010 without receiving pension, and his widow’s representations were not acted upon.

She filed O.A. No. 991 of 2018 before the State Administrative Tribunal; while the Tribunal was not functioning, she approached the High Court.

She relied on decisions concerning the counting of temporary service for pension, while the State argued that her husband’s daily-rated engagement was not against a permanent vacancy and could not count as qualifying service.

Whether Kader Ali’s temporary and master-roll service could be counted towards the qualifying service required for pensionary benefits.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to her husband’s pensionary arrears and continuing family pension after his death.

The Court relied on the coordinate-bench decisions in Hiralal Ghosh v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPST 172 of 2024, and Niranjan Bisai v. State of West Bengal, WPST 104 of 2026.

Those decisions applied the principle that temporary service preceding regularization may be counted towards qualifying service for pension where the employee was subsequently regularized against an existing vacancy; the State’s challenge to the Hiralal Ghosh decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The judgment identifies the Death-cum-Retirement Benefit scheme as relevant to the State’s objection but cites no specific statutory provision or scheme rule.

The Court found that the departmental memorandum established Kader Ali’s substantial master-roll service before regularization and his subsequent service as a Khalasi.

Applying the coordinate-bench decisions, it held that the temporary service could be included in assessing qualifying service and rejected the State’s contention that the daily-rated period was excluded merely because it was not an appointment against a permanent vacancy.

Counting that service warranted condoning the two-year-and-one-month deficiency and granting pensionary relief.

It further directed that his widow receive the dues and family pension, with payment to continue month by month.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt or production of the order; there was no order as to costs.