Work-charged service after regularisation counts toward pension eligibility, but not pension computation.

The petitioner was appointed as a Helper in the Work-Charged Establishment of the Building Construction Department in 1981 and was subsequently regularized on the post of Helper with effect from 20 February 2014 by Memo No. 2910 dated 17 May 2014.

He retired on 30 September 2020 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

Although he had served from 1981 until retirement, his pension was calculated on the basis of 26 years, 6 months and 13 days of qualifying service, and he claimed that his work-charged service had not been correctly considered.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar and earlier judgments granting similar benefits to other work-charged employees, he sought payment of his entire retiral benefits and consequential benefits.

The State submitted that his claim would be considered in accordance with Uday Pratap Thakur .

1. Whether the petitioner’s service rendered in the Work-Charged Establishment could be counted for determining his qualifying service for pension after his subsequent regularization under the applicable regularization scheme.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to consequential pensionary and retiral benefits in accordance with the law laid down in Uday Pratap Thakur .

3. Whether the entire period of work-charged service could be counted for calculating the quantum of pension, rather than merely for completing the qualifying service requirement.

The Court applied Rule 5(v) of the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013, which beneficially permits service rendered as a work-charged employee to be counted, to the extent necessary, towards the qualifying service required for pension where the employee’s services were subsequently regularized.

Relying on Uday Pratap Thakur v. State of Bihar , Civil Appeal No. 3155 of 2023, and Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2019) 10 SCC 516, the Court held that a regularized work-charged employee should not be denied pension merely because the regular service period falls short of the qualifying-service requirement.

However, work-charged service cannot ordinarily be treated as regular service for calculating the quantum of pension, since work-charged employees are not appointed against substantive posts through the regular recruitment process; such service is counted only for qualifying-service purposes under Rule 5(v).

The petitioner had been regularized in 2014 and had rendered substantial service in the work-charged establishment before retirement.

Applying Rule 5(v) as interpreted in Uday Pratap Thakur , the Court held that the competent authority was required to examine whether the petitioner’s work-charged service had to be added to his regular service for satisfying the qualifying-service requirement for pension.

At the same time, the Court recognized the distinction between counting work-charged service for eligibility and counting it for the quantum of pension: the entire work-charged tenure could not automatically be treated as regular service for computing pension.

Since the petitioner’s pension had already been sanctioned and a Pension Payment Order had been issued, the Court found that his remaining pensionary benefits were required to be examined and paid in accordance with law, subject to verification by the competent authority.

The Court further directed that the petitioner’s other pensionary benefits, under different heads, be calculated and paid in accordance with law, if not already paid, within six weeks from the date of communication of the order.

The Court did not direct that the entire work-charged service be treated as regular service for determining the quantum of pension; its relevance was primarily for completing the qualifying service required for pension.