Summary
A General Assistant engaged by Doordarshan on a casual or contractual basis from 1985 was regularised as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from 31 March 1995. Her claim to have the earlier service counted as qualifying service for pension was rejected by the department and the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the Gujarat High Court allowed it, reading temporary capacity in Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 to include casual and contractual service. The Supreme Court allowed the department's appeal: casual or contractual service is neither substantive nor officiating or temporary service within Rule 13, neither the Pension Rules nor the regularisation scheme provides for counting it, and schemes in other departments cannot confer the benefit.
Issues
- Whether service rendered on a casual or contractual basis before regularisation counts as service in an officiating or temporary capacity under Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 so as to form part of qualifying service for pension.
Provisions considered
- Rule 13, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972Qualifying service commences from the date of taking charge of a post on substantive, officiating or temporary appointment, with officiating or temporary service counting only if followed without interruption by substantive appointment; casual or contractual service is none of these and the High Court erred in treating it as service in a temporary capacity. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8)
- Rule 14, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972Service qualifies only if duties and pay are regulated by the Government; read with Rule 13 and the 2009 DOPT clarification that a contractual appointee cannot claim benefit of pre-regularisation contractual service, the respondent's casual service does not qualify. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Held
- The question is not whether contractual service could be treated as service in a temporary capacity but whether the employee in fact rendered temporary service; service as a casual or contractual employee cannot be said to be officiating or temporary service, nor service on a substantive appointment, and so is not qualifying service under Rule 13. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- Neither the Pension Rules nor the Doordarshan regularisation scheme provides that casual or contractual service shall be counted for pensionary benefits; the existence of schemes to that effect in other departments cannot entitle an employee of an autonomous body like Prasar Bharati to the same benefit. (¶¶ 5, 9)
Result
Appeal allowed; Gujarat High Court judgment dated 17.02.2022 directing that the respondent's casual or contractual service be counted as temporary service for pension quashed; order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Original Application restored; no order as to costs.