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.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Since common questions of facts as well as law are involved in all the above-captioned cases, this Court heard them together and the same are now being disposed of vide common judgment.

2. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in all the petitions and further canvassed by Mr. S.P. Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that though in terms of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.195 of 2019, titled as Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others , decided on 26.12.2019, service rendered on ad hoc basis followed by regular service is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of qualifying service, but yet respondents have not counted such period for the purpose of pension as well as gratuity.

3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that petitioners herein though were initially appointed as Instructor in their respective trades, but they all after having rendered more than 20 years of service, retired on 31.12.2016, 30.06.2017, 31.10.2018, 3011.2020 as Principal. Initially petitioners were appointed as Instructor in their respective trades on ad hoc basis, but subsequently they were promoted to the post of Foreman, Group Instructor/ Foreman and Principal after their rendering more than 7 years of service. After there being retired on attaining the age of superannuation, petitioners herein were sanctioned/authorized pension and DCRG by taking into account the regular service rendered by them. Though now in lieu of regular service rendered by the petitioners, they have also been paid gratuity qua afore period, but their precise grouse is that services rendered on ad hoc basis, which were subsequently followed by regularization, have not been taken into consideration for the purpose of pension as well as gratuity.

4. By way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioners on the premise that ad hoc appointment is not substantive in nature, as such, petitioners herein cannot be granted any benefit qua the same. While referring to CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that afore rules are applicable only to the regular Government servants appointed in the substantive capacity in the service of State Government because in terms of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Government servants appointed substantively to civil services or posts in connection with the affairs of the State Government and are borne on pensionable establishments can be granted pension and gratuity.

5. To the contrary, Mr. S.P. Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, vehemently argued that qualifying service of a Government servant commences from the date he/she takes charge of the post to which he/she is first appointed either substantively, in an officiating or temporary capacity provided that officiating or temporary service is followed by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. He submitted that since petitioner’s ad hoc service is followed by regular service, the service rendered on ad hoc basis is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of pensionary benefits in terms of