In one of its recent judgements, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that services of an employee, appointed on a contractual basis in a temporary capacity, can be counted towards qualifying service for the grant of pension after his services have been regularized.
The Court's judgement came out when in a case, the request of petitioner for disbursement of her deceased husband's salary was declined by the Govt on the ground that he couldn't be counted for pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as the same were applicable only to regular government employees appointed in the pensionable establishments in the Government departments on or before 14.05.2003.
The Court further stated that as per Rule 2 (g) of the Pension Rules, these weren't applicable to the persons employed on contract except where the contract provided otherwise.
Petitioner's contention was that her husband was appointed as Ayurvedic Doctor on contract basis in a temporary capacity in the year 1999. However, his services were thereafter regularised in the year 2009 and he shortly thereafter expired in Jan 2011.
The Court thus after making the observation of submissions and facts held,
"even though the appointment of the husband of the petitioner was contractual but that was in no manner qualitatively different from the regular employees and once there was need for doctors in the State as is evident from the fact that the services of the husband of the petitioner ultimately stood regularised, then it was unfair on the part of the State Government to take work from the employee on contract basis."
The Court in making up the above judgement, placed reliance on Paras Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr., Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887 in which a single-Judge bench held that if Adhoc service is followed by regular service in the same post, the said service can be counted for the purpose of increments.
The judgement so made was subsequently reaffirmed by various division and co-ordinate benches of the High Court.
Citing one more judgement, State of HP & Ors. v. Matwar Singh & Anr., 2018, in which a coordinate bench had held that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.
To make the point more clear, the Court then went on to cite a decision rendered by a division bench the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rai Singh & Anr. v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, C.W.P. No.2246 of 2008, wherein it was held that once the employees have been regularised and are held entitled to pension by counting Adhoc service, exclusion of service "on contract basis" will be discriminatory.
The Court also held that the appointment on contract basis is a type of adhoc service. The mere fact that nominal breaks are given or lesser pay is given or increments are not given, is no ground to treat the said service differently.
The Court thus concluded in its remark,
"State has been benefitted by the services rendered by the deceased husband of the petitioner in the heydays of his life on less salary on a contractual basis. Therefore, there is no rhyme or reason not to count the contract period in case it has been rendered before regularization. If the same is denied, it would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service."
The judgement has been delivered by Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia on 26-12-20-19.
Read Judgement Here:
