Pensionary Benefits For Contractual Period Before Regularization Must Include Annual Increments : Himachal Pradesh High Court

Background Facts

The petitioner was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on the contractual basis. Later his service was regularised but his contract service period was not considered by the respondents for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits. He filed a civil writ petition for direction to the State to consider his tenure as contractual TGT for the purposes of pension and other benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. The court ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's request within six weeks. The respondents considered petitioner's tenure as contractual employee for purposes of pensions, however rejected claims for increments based on such contractual tenure.

Aggrieved by State's action, the petitioner filed the writ petition for relief.

It was contended by the petitioner that he continued in regular service after the contractual service therefore he was entitled to annual increments in pensionary benefits. On the other hand it was contended by the state that the nature of employment before regularization of petitioner was contractual, therefore, it cannot be counted for the purpose of annual increments.

Findings of the Court

The case of Sheela Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that service of an employee appointed on contractual basis is liable to be counted as qualifying for grant of pension after regularization of the service.

In Jagdish Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, the Supreme Court held that contractual service rendered by the Junior Basic Trained Teachers shall be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the CCS Pension Rules 1972 as well as for grant of the annual increments.

In the case of Prabha Kanwar through LRs Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, persons initially appointed on contract basis as lecturers and later on regularized, were entitled to count the period of their contractual services for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as the annual increments. But the court restricted the consequential financial benefits to three years prior to petitioners filed the claim before Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal.

The case of Ram Chand & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that appointment of adhoc/Temporary Teachers by State to avoid permanent appointments was wrongful on the part of state as it deprived them of service benefits available to regular employees.

Further the case of Sunil Dutt & others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court held that the basic pay with addition of increments need to be considered while calculating the pension. Therefore, direction to count service for pension also mandates calculation of pension by granting annual increment for relevant period.

In case of Satish Kumar Banyal & Ors Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors, the Supreme Court held that contract service of the petitioners was followed by regular service on the same post without any interruption or break. Therefore, they were entitled for counting their contract service for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits. In the case of Narayan Dutt Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Anr., the Supreme Court held that the contractual service is liable to be counted towards grant of annual increments.

It was held by the court that petitioner was entitled for counting of the contractual services as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the CCS Pension Rules 1972 and also for the purpose of grant of annual increments. Further the respondent authority was directed by the court to consider the position of the petitioner for grant of annual increment. It was directed by the court to complete the exercise within a period of six weeks.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case No. : CWP No. 14870/2024

Counsel for the Petitioner : Devender K. Sharma, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Dalip Sharma, Additional Advocate General