2026 Supreme(Raj) 303

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, Chandra Shekhar Sharma, JJ.
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Ayurved - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Shiv Narayan Joshi – Respondent 
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1111 of 2024
Decided On : 23-04-2026

Service rendered on a contractual basis against sanctioned posts, followed by uninterrupted regularization, must be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Technical nomenclature cannot invalidate the substantive nature of employment when the individual has performed duties identical to regular employees over a significant, continuous period.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Pension Rules - Qualifying service - Contractual service followed by regularization - Whether service rendered on a contractual basis can be counted for pensionary benefits - Held: Yes, services rendered on a contractual basis against sanctioned posts and subsequently followed by regularization without interruption constitute qualifying service - Technical labels like "contractual" cannot override the substantive nature of the employment when the functions performed are identical to those of regular employees (Paras 38, 41, 51).

(B) Probation Period - Service Rules - Determination of completion - Whether probation for a substantive post can be reckoned from initial contractual engagement - Held: An employee who has rendered continuous and satisfactory service for a significant duration on essentially the same post cannot be subjected to a fresh probation period as if a new hire, as the purpose of probation (evaluating suitability) has already been fulfilled by the prior prolonged satisfactory service (Paras 53, 55).

(C) Leave Entitlement - Temporary employees - Benefit of privilege leave - Employees appointed substantively without interruption in duty are entitled to credit for leave accrued based on their prior temporary service (Paras 56, 57).

Facts of the case:
The employees were initially hired on a contractual basis against vacant posts and worked for over a decade before being regularized upon selection. The employer denied them pensionary benefits and leave for the period prior to their regular appointment, resulting in original proceedings before the lower court which, in part, allowed their claim for benefits, leading to the current challenge.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the nature of employment was effectively temporary service against sanctioned posts, rather than mere limited-term contractual work. Due to the long-term uninterrupted service and subsequent regularization, the entire duration must be counted for terminal benefits. Evaluation of suitability during the preceding years negated the necessity of a fresh probation period.

Issues: Whether service rendered on a contractual basis constitutes "qualifying service" under the relevant pension rules and whether a fresh probation period is mandatory when an employee is regularized after years of continuous service.

Ratio Decidendi: If an employee is engaged on a contractual basis against a sanctioned post and is subsequently regularized without any interruption in service, the entire period of such engagement qualifies as "qualifying service" for pension purposes. Denying such benefits based on nomenclature, while ignoring the factual continuity and the substantive nature of duties, is arbitrary and violates constitutional expectations of fairness in employment.

Result: Appeal dismissed.