Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2944
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Kanak Srivastava - Petitioner
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and others – Respondents
Writ A. No. 19325 of 2019
Decided On : 08-07-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Siddharth Khare, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate
Project service cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension purposes under CCS Rules, emphasizing the need for formal appointment for benefits.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Pension entitlement - The widow challenged the exclusion of her husband's earlier project service in calculating pension, claiming discrimination compared to a similarly situated employee. The Court examined the eligibility of project service for pension computation and upheld that such service cannot be counted towards pension as it was not part of the regular establishment. (Paras 1, 3, 11, 17, 31, 37)
(B) Discrimination - Equal treatment under the law - Claim of hostility based on differing treatment in pension scales for employees in analogous post was dismissed; the court affirmed that differences arose from appointment timelines and not arbitrary discrimination. (Paras 32, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the denial of retrospective consideration of her deceased husband's project service towards his pension, which he had previously claimed and was denied on grounds of lacking qualifying service under the CCS Rules.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the service rendered in the CBD Project did not qualify as 'regular service' and thus could not be counted for pension benefits, reaffirming the validity of prior decisions distinguishing between project work and regular employment.
Issues: Whether the services rendered in a project can be construed as qualifying for pension computation and if there exists any discrimination in pension entitlements between the petitioner’s husband and a contemporaneous employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The services in a project funded by a private body cannot count towards qualifying service under the CCS Rules. The court emphasized the lack of any policy or rule permitting such inclusion.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. pension calculation based on total service tenure. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's reasoning on pension eligibility and discrimination claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 3. eligibility of project service for pension benefits. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. final ruling on the dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 37 , 38) |
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
1. The petitioner, Kanak Srivastava, is the widow of the late Prakash Chandra Srivastava, a Junior Medical Social Worker in the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences,[‘IMS’ for short], Banaras Hindu University, [‘BHU’]. The late Prakash Chandra Srivastava retired from service, upon attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.08.2005. He was sanctioned a retirement pension, reckoning his services from 28.08.1986 until the date of his retirement i.e. 31.08.2005. The respondents did not take into for short consideration the services rendered by Prakash Chandra Srivastava from 01.11.1981 to 07.08.1986 in the CBD Project, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, IMS, BHU that he had rendered prior to joining regular service as a Medical Social Worker in the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, last mentioned. The petitioner thinks that her husband was unfairly treated during his lifetime in the matter of fixation of his pension, for, according to the petitioner as well as her late husband, a junior to him, M.C. Joshi, who had been appointed as Junior Medical Social Worker along with the petitioner, was paid a higher pay scale and higher pension upon retirement, bringing about hostile discrimination. It is on the foot of this cause of action broadly that the petitioner, after her husband’s demise, has instituted this writ petition, initially challenging an order dated 31.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Admin-NT), excluding the petitioner’s husband’s services rendered in the project for the purpose of fixation of his pension and another order dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Registrar of the BHU, annexed as Annexure CA-5 to the counter affidavit dated 02.02.2020, which the petitioner has challenged through an amendment. The petitioner further prays that a mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to pay pension to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 in the same terms as paid to M.C. Joshi, who retired from the same post and in the same pay scale as Prakash Chandra Srivastava. The petitioner also seeks payment of arrears of retirement pension on account of the difference in pension, to which her husband was entitled and that paid to him since 31.08.2005.
2. Now, a detailed statement of the petitioner’s case would show that her husband, Prakash Chandra Srivastava, was appointed initially as a Case Worker in the Rural Health Training Centre, Chiraigaon, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, IMS, BHU, where he worked from 24.04.1978 to 06.06.1978. Next, he was employed as a Social Scientist with the University Health Centre, BHU from 20.07.1978 to 28.10.1979. Srivastava was then employed in the CBD Project, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, IMS, BHU, where he worked from 01.11.1981 to 07.08.1986. Subsequently, he was appointed on regular basis as a Medical Social Worker on 28.08.1986 with the Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, IMS, BHU in the pay scale of Rs.550-900. Next, he was appointed as a Junior Medical Worker in the Department of Preventive Social Medicine in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 01.07.1993.
3. According to the petitioner, Srivastava was appointed a Junior Medical Social Worker along with one M.C. Joshi on the same post and placed in the same pay scale. Srivastava superannuated on 31.08.2005, and, according to the petitioner, he was paid his pension in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, whereas, M.C. Joshi, who was appointed on the same post and
