Ad hoc service rendered against a regular post qualifies for pension only if such service is subsequently regularized without interruption, as per Rule 15-A of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent/State on I.A. No.01/2026, which is an application for condonation of delay of 6 days in filing the present writ appeal.

2. On due consideration, I.A.No.01/2026 is allowed. Delay of 6 days in filing the present writ appeal is hereby condoned.

3. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 1145/2023 (Bhushan Lal vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. Thereafter, the writ appellant prefer the instant appeal before this Court with the following prayer:-

“ i. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire relevant records from the respondents authorities concerning to the appellant's case.

ii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 20/01/2026 passed by the Hon'ble Single Bench in W.P.(S) No. 1145/2023.

iii. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a direction to the respondent authorities to calculate the entire service period for Pension purpose, to meet the ends of justice.

iv. That, the Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondents to count petitioner's initial service period i.e. from 1991 to 1996 for Pension and Gratuity with all purpose and disburse the consequential benefits with interest, in the interest of justice amount.

v. That the Hon'ble Court direct the respondents authority to give cost of the litigation to the appellant.”

4. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on the post of Lab Technician vide order dated 13.09.1991 and joined his duties on 16.09.1991 at Government Chhattisgarh College, Raipur. Thereafter, his services were regularized vide order dated 09.08.1996 issued by the Additional Director, Higher Education, Raipur-Bastar Division, and he joined as a regular employee on 12.08.1996. The appellant continued in service without any adverse remark and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2022 from Government Mahaprabhu Vallabhacharya P.G. College, Mahasamund. However, while calculating the pension and gratuity, the respondent authorities excluded the period of service rendered by the appellant from 16.09.1991 to 11.08.1996 and reckoned his qualifying service only from the date of regularization. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant submitted several representations seeking counting of the said ad hoc service period for pensionary benefits on the basis of Rule 15- A of the applicable Pension Rules, which provides for counting of ad hoc service rendered against a regular post when such services are subsequently regularized without interruption. The appellant also relied upon the judgments rendered in Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia vs. State of M.P. & Others decided on 26.11.2025 and Geeta Shrivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported in 1988 MPLJ 1982, wherein it has been held that artificial breaks in service cannot deprive an employee from pensionary benefits. However, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without considering and distinguishing the aforesaid binding precedents, hence the present writ appeal has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the action of the respondents in not counting the services rendered by the a