Summary
Data Entry Operators engaged on contract between 1996 and 1999 and regularised prospectively in 2015 sought to have their contractual service counted for pension. Applying Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as interpreted in State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, the Supreme Court held that the period of contractual service before regularisation must be counted towards pensionary benefits through the option mechanism in Rule 17, and directed the Union of India to indicate the mode and manner of exercising the option.
Issues
- Whether service rendered on contract before regularisation is to be counted towards pensionary benefits under Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Provisions considered
- Rule 17 (counting of service on contract); Rule 2(g), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972Rule 17 permits a person initially engaged on contract and subsequently appointed substantively in a pensionable establishment without interruption to opt either to retain the Government's Contributory Provident Fund contribution or to refund or forgo it and count the contract service; the option is to be exercised within three months, failing which retention is deemed. The Court held the rule squarely covers the case: although Rule 2(g) excludes contractual employees, Rule 17 applies once such an employee is regularised, so past contractual service counts for pension (Sheela Devi). (¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 9)
Held
- The submissions before the Court were confined to pensionary benefits by inclusion of the contractual period; the questions of retrospective regularisation, seniority and other service benefits for the contractual period were not argued and were not considered. (¶ 6)
- Rule 17 of the Pension Rules deals with counting of contract service for pension and squarely covers the case. On its clear language and its interpretation in Sheela Devi, the contractual service rendered before the appellants' regularisation in 2015 must be counted towards their pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism in Rule 17, under which the regularised employee opts either to retain the Government's CPF contribution or to refund or forgo it in lieu of counting the service. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9)
- Following the directions in Sheela Devi, the Union of India is to take immediate steps to indicate the mode and manner in which the appellants may exercise the option under Rule 17 and to notify the amounts they would have to remit if they opt for pension under the Rules. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; High Court order dated 23.03.2021 set aside to the extent indicated; Union of India directed to indicate the mode and manner of exercising the option under Rule 17 and to notify the amounts to be remitted; application for bringing on record the legal representatives of appellant no. 21 allowed; no order as to costs.