Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 741
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
S.D. Jayaprakash And Ors. Etc. – Appellants
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5671-5672 of 2025 Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 19539-19540 of 2021
Decided on : 29-04-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Yogya Rajpurohit,Adv. Mr. Aayush Saklani, Adv. Ms. Nikita Capoor, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Akhil, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr.Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr.Kritagya Kait, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Upon regularisation, prior contractual service must be counted for pensionary benefits as per Rule 17 of the Pension Rules.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 17 - Pensionary benefits - Appellants, initially appointed on a contractual basis, were denied seniority and pension for the period of contractual service by the High Court - Court partly allowed appeals, directing the Union of India to grant pensionary benefits including the contractual service period - The decision in State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 was relied upon to support the claim for pension. (Paras 2, 5, 9)
(B) Contractual Employment - Regularisation - The court emphasized that upon regularisation, the Pension Rules apply, allowing for the counting of prior contractual service for pension calculation. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were appointed as Data Entry Operators on a contractual basis between 1996 and 1999 and were regularised in 2015. They sought to have their contractual service counted for pension and other benefits, which was initially granted by the CAT but later partly overturned by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the appellants' contractual service must be counted for pensionary benefits as per Rule 17 of the Pension Rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the period of contractual service should be counted for pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Rule 17 of the Pension Rules mandates that past service as a contractual employee is to be considered for pension calculation upon regularisation.
Result: Appeals partly allowed.
It seems like your query is providing a template or instructions for extracting key points from a legal document, but no actual document content (e.g., the {content} placeholder) has been included. As an automated assistant to a lawyer, I can help analyze legal documents by summarizing key points, referencing sources, and following formatting guidelines like the ones you described.
To proceed: - Please provide the full legal document or its content. - If you have specific references (e.g., page numbers like (!) ), include those details.
Once I have the document, I can generate a response in the format you outlined, such as listing key points with separate references in square brackets. Let me know how I can assist further!
JUDGMENT :
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from the Karnataka High Court’s order dated 23.03.20211[In W.P. No. 4712/2016 (S-CAT) c/w W.P. No. 4714/2016 (S-CAT).] by which it held that the appellants, who were initially appointed on contractual basis and subsequently regularised, will not be entitled to seniority, service benefits, and pension for the period of their contractual service. Upon consideration of the relevant rules and the decision of this Court in State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 we have partly allowed the present appeals and directed the respondent, i.e., Union of India to grant pensionary benefit to the appellants in accordance with law.
3. The short facts that are necessary are as follows. The appellants were appointed as Data Entry Operators under the Plan Scheme called ‘Rationalisation of Data Processing Facilities’ on temporary and contractual basis between 1996 and 1999. Pursuant to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal3[Hereinafter “CAT”.] dated 01.04.20134[In O.A. No. 339/2011 before CAT, Bangalore. The High Court upheld the same in W.P. Nos. 57381/2013 (S- CAT) and connected matters by order dated 22.04.2014.], the respondents issued an Office Memorandum dated 05.01.2015 to regularise the appellants’ service from a prospective date, i.e., from the date of issuance of this order. Pursuantly, the appellants were appointed on a regular basis by order dated 01.04.2015, w.e.f. 05.01.2015. The appellants preferred an Original Application before the CAT, with a prayer to regularise their services from the date of initial appointment or at least from the date of completing 10 years of service, and to protect their pay and to grant seniority, service benefits and pension by counting their period of contractual service. The CAT allowed the same by order dated 19.01.2016 and directed as follows:
“31. Therefore, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we order as follows:
1. The pay and other allowances drawn by the applicants prior to their appointment on regular basis on 1.4.2015 shall be protected and they shall be allowed the pay being drawn by them immediately prior to their regularisation as their basic pay as on 1.4.2015. Their annual increment shall be determined accordingly.
2. The applicants from whose salary, the GPF and other contributions made right from the date of their appointment on contract basis shall be entitled to come under the old pension scheme and the entire period of service right from the date of initial appointment on contract basis shall be counted towards pensionary benefits.
3. For the purpose of seniority, ACP and other service benefits etc., the regular service of the applicants shall be reckoned from the date of completion of 10 years of service from their initial appointments on contract basis.
32. The Respondents are directed to fix the salary of the applicants and grant the consequential benefits in terms of the above direction within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
4. The respondents challenged the above order by way of a writ petition, which was partly allowed by the impugned order. The High Court set aside the CAT’s directions to the extent of counting the period of contractual service for grant of seniority, service benefits, and pension on the ground that the initial appointment was on a contractual basis and not pursuant to the recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission. It held that the appellants will be entitled to regularisation and its consequential benefits only from 01.04.2015. However, the Court upheld the CAT’s direction regarding protection of pay while fixing the pay scale.
5. We have heard Mr. MC Dhingra, learned senior counsel for the appellants. He relied on this Court’s decision in Sheela Devi (supra) to contend that as per Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 19725[Hereinafter “Pension Rules”.], the app
![Neelam Rani [since Deceased] Through LRs vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 1546](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Himachal_Pradesh_3.png)
