JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Special Civil Application No. 14592/2021, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and has directed that the services of the respondent herein-original writ petitioner rendered as contractual shall be liable to be counted as temporary service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for pensionary/retiral benefits, the Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India and another have preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under:

That the respondent herein-original applicant was engaged as a General Assistant on contract/casual basis in the year 1985. The services of the respondent as General Assistant on contract/casual basis were thereafter extended from time to time, however, with break of few days. The original applicant thereafter filed Original Application No. 32/1987 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The said OA was partly allowed vide order dated 30.08.1990 with a direction to the department-appellants herein to pay her the same salary and allowances that were being paid to other regular General Assistants/Clerks from October, 1990 with arrears.

2.1 That thereafter, pursuant to the decision of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi to regularise casual employees by way of framing of scheme, the services of the original applicant came to be regularised as Lower Division Clerk with effect from 31.03.1995 pursuant to the Scheme of Regularisation of Casual Staff Artists of Doordarshan, 1992/94. The original application was given the regular scale of Lower Division Clerk from the date of regularisation on the said post.

2.2 That thereafter the original applicant approached the Tribunal seeking consideration of her past service. The said OA came to be dismissed, which was the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court. The High Court was pleased to permit the original applicant to submit representation to the department. That thereafter the respondent-original applicant submitted representation dated 11.4.2014. Vide order dated 18.09.2014, the department rejected the representation of the respondent for giving her the benefit of casual/contractual services rendered by her from 1985 till 31.03.1995 for calculating the pensionary/service benefits.

2.3 That thereafter, the original applicant filed another OA No. 446/2014 before the Tribunal. By a detailed judgment and order dated 08.09.2021, the Tribunal dismissed the said OA by observing that the services rendered by the respondent as contractual/casual cannot be treated and/or considered as temporary service and therefore the services rendered as such shall not be counted for the purpose of retiral benefits/service benefits. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the OA was the subject matter of writ petition before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court has observed that the services in temporary capacity will include the classes of temporary servants such as casual or even contractual. By observing so and relying upon Rule 13 of the Rules applicable, the High Court has allowed the writ petition and has directed that the services of the respondent the writ petitioner rendered as contractual/casual shall be liable to be counted as temporary service for the purposes of calculating qualifying service in accordance with the rules and accordingly she shall be paid the pension on her retirement. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of the present appeal.

3. Shri Rajeev Sharma, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently