IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Soumitra Saikia, J.
Ranjan Nath - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam represented by the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development and ors. – Respondents
W.P(C) NO.1517 & 1903 of 2023
Decided On : 13-05-2024
Pensionary Benefits - Ad-hoc Employees - Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999 - Rule 31 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 - The court held that the period of services rendered in ad-hoc capacity against valid sanctioned posts can be counted for satisfying the qualifying period of service under the pension Rules. The respondents were directed to process the pension papers and release pensions and other retiral benefits to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions relate to claims for pensionary benefits by the respective writ petitioners who were initially appointed on ad-hoc basis and subsequently regularized. The petitioners sought direction from the Court to release their pensionary benefits by considering the period of services rendered as ad-hoc employees against the vacant posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had rendered continuous services in ad-hoc capacity against valid sanctioned posts and were subsequently regularized. It held that the period of services rendered in ad-hoc capacity can be counted for satisfying the qualifying period of service under the pension Rules.
Issues: The main issue was whether the period of services rendered as ad-hoc employees could be considered for eligibility for pensionary benefits after regularization.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Assam Panchayat Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 1999 and Rule 31 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 to interpret that the period of services rendered in ad-hoc capacity against valid sanctioned posts can be counted for satisfying the qualifying period of service under the pension Rules.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to process the pension papers and release pensions and other retiral benefits to the petitioners within 90 days.
JUDGMENT :
Both these writ petitions are taken together as it relates to the claims for pensionary benefits by the respective writ petitioners.
2. In W.P.(C)No. 1517/2023, the writ petitioner was appointed as a Tax Collector on temporary basis at Narshingpur Anchalik Panchayat under Cachar Zilla Parisad for a period of 90 days in the appropriate scale of pay. His services were thereafter extended from time to time without any break. Subsequently, by orders of the Government, petitioner was regularized on 01.06.2023. During his service period as an ad-hoc employee, the petitioner was receiving the benefit of revised pay-scale. The petitioner had rendered his services during the ad-hoc period against a valid sanctioned post. The petitioner rendered his continuous services as ad-hoc employee from 15.05.1996 to 31.05.2013 which is little more than 17 years. Pursuant to his regularization, he rendered his services as a regular employee in the same sanctioned post from 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2021 that is for 7 years 9 months. Petitioner thereafter superannuated from service on 31.03.2021. Although the pension papers have been duly submitted by the petitioner and forwarded to the competent authorities, his pension has not been released till date. No provisional pension has also been released till date. Upon queries made by the petitioner, he was informed that he is not entitled to pension as he did not complete the minimum years of service required to qualify for pension which is 10 years as a regular employee. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction from this Court to release his pensionary benefits by taking into account the period of services rendered as ad-hoc employee as the same was against the vacant post.
3. InW.P.(C) No. 1903/2023, this writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are similarly situated and were appointed as Tax Collectors under the P&RD Department in the year 1996. They were initially appointed on ad-hoc basis and were extended. Subsequently, by Notification dated 01.06.2013, the engagements of the petitioners were regularized without consequential service benefits including regular salary and payment. The petitioners upon attaining their age of superannuation, retired from their respective services on 31.10.2021 and 31.03.2018 respectively. Although the petitioners have submitted their pension papers and which were duly forwarded to the competent authorities, their pension has not been released as they were informed that pursuant to regularizations, their services rendered in regular capacity fellshort of the mandatory requirement as per the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 for being eligible for grant of pension. Although joint representations were submitted as far back as 26.08.2021 before the Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, the same has not yet been disposed of. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed praying for an appropriate direction to the respondents to grant them their pensions as per their entitlement.
4. The learned counsel in both the writ petitions have made similar submissions. Itis submitted that they had rendered ad-hoc services against the valid sanctioned post. Subsequently, their services were regularized by order of the competent authority dated 01.06.2013. Although the petitioners had rendered their services in ad-hoc capacity, their services rendered were continuous which were duly extended from time to time by the competent authority. They have received regular scale of pay with necessary revision as applicable. As such for all practical purposes, they had rendered their services continuously against the valid sanctioned post, drawing regular scale of pay and the fact that their cases were not considered for regularization, is an issue, which is beyond their control. Be that as it may, by order dated 01.06.2013, the competent authority regularized their services with effect from the said date. Accordingly, the benefits of the serv
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of services rendered in ad-hoc capacity against valid sanctioned posts can be counted for satisfying the qualifying period of servi....
Provincialized Panchayat employees are entitled to pension based on their entire service duration, not limited to sanctioned posts.
The entire service period of a Panchayat employee must be considered for pension computation, not just the provincialized period.
The entire service period of a Panchayat employee must be considered for pension computation, not just the provincialized period.
Provincialized Panchayat employees are entitled to pension based on their entire service period, not limited to sanctioned posts.
Rule 31 of Assam Services Pension Rule, 1969 entitles a person for pension when service is under Government, secondly, employment is substantive and permanent and thirdly, servant must be paid by Gov....
Continuous service of 40 years as a daily wager entitles the petitioner to pensionary benefits from the date of initial appointment, not from the date of regularization.
Ad hoc service followed by regularization counts as qualifying service for pension and gratuity under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 13, preventing discriminatory exclusion of prior service.
The court established that pension eligibility is based on total service duration from initial appointment, not just provincialized service.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.