JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

Having regard to the issue involved and with the consent and request of learned advocates for the parties, the petition was taken up for final consideration today.

1.1. Therefore, Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Ankit Shah waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

1.2. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.S. Trivedi for the petitioner and learned advocate for the respondent.

2. The petitioner Smt. Margaret H. Ferrier, after marriage Smt. M.H. Desai, who was initially appointed as casual labourer since 1984, and came to be regularised to be appointed in temporary capacity as Lower Division Clerk from 10th April, 1995, made a representation to the competent authority of the respondents for counting her past contractual services for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits.

2.1. By order dated 18th September, 2014 the Deputy Director General, Prasar Bharti, rejected the claim on the ground that the Scheme of Regularisation of Casual Staff Artists of Doordarshan, 1992/94 under which the petitioner was regularised, did not contain any clause to consider past casual service for pensionary benefits. It was further reasoned that in case of such contractual appointment, subsequent appointment and such individual is treated as fresh appointment and it was sated that in other words, such employees are not entitled to any benefit of contractual service to be counted for pension purpose.

2.2. It was the said decision of refusal dated 18th September, 2014 which came to be challenged by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench by filing Original Application No. 446 of 2014. As per the impugned order dated 08th September, 2021, the Tribunal accepted the decision of the competent authority reiterating the very ground and further holding that since the petitioner was on contractual basis and was regularised when the regular vacancy arose, there was no infirmity in decision to refuse the claim for counting the past service for pensionary benefits.

3. Shorn off the unnecessary details, stating the relevant facts, petitioner was appointed as General Assistant on contractual basis in the year 1984. She came to be regularised as Lower Division Clerk as per order dated 10th April, 1995, copy of which figures on record (Annexure-I, Page 37). The order inter alia recites that regularisation of the petitioner was pursuant to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application Nos. 486-492/1989 as per judgment dated 23rd November, 1994. The scale of pay in which the petitioner was appointed etc. was mentioned in the order.

3.1. Well before the date of superannuation of the petitioner arrives in the year 2023, petitioner made the aforesaid representation to the competent authority for reckoning her contractual services for pension which resulted into refusal as above and culminated into the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that 50% of the service rendered as casual or contractual employee is liable to be considered for the purpose of counting the total service for pension. He referred to the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench in Ulhas D. Arekar v. The Union of India being Original Application No. 103 of 2010 decided on 30th January, 2013, to submit that in the similar set of circumstances, the said Bench held in favour of the employee, treating the temporary service as per the Rule to be counted as qualifying service.

4.1. The claim was contested by the respondent authorities by filing affidavit-in-reply in the present proceedings seeking to distinguish the decision of the Bombay Bench. It was next submitted that the Scheme of 1992/94 based on which the petitioner was appointed as regular employee did not provide the consideration of casual service for counting towards pensionary benefits. Learned advocate for the respondent for the respondents relied on the contentions rais