Short artificial breaks in ad-hoc service are deemed fictional and do not interrupt service continuity for pensionary benefits. Furthermore, retrospective application of restrictive amendments to pension rules is impermissible for employees who retired prior to such amendments.

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:-

(i) To call for the record of Pension Case No. 806/34/.स./आउिश/शाखा-2/20,

(ii) To quash impugned order of Annexure P/10

(iii) To direct the respondents to calculate the pension on the basis of period of 33 years of services of the petitioner and:

(iv) To direct the respondents to include the period of Ad-hoc services of the petitioner w.e.f. 05-03-1977 till date of retirement i.e. 31.12.2009 and:

(v) To grant full pension and full pensionary benefits as well as arrears of pension to the petitioner w.e.f. the date of his retirement with interest at the market rate,

(vi) To grant any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of the litigation in favor of the petitioner."

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc lecturer of Physics in Government College, Bina, District Sagar vide order dated 5.3.1977. Petitioner's services continued as

ad-hoc lecturer till 4.3.1987. The petitioner's services were regularized vide Order dated 04/03/1987. The petitioner thereafter was promoted to the post of Professor. The petitioner stood retired on 31.12.2009. It is submitted that the Government had resolved the dispute of counting of the period of adhoc services for the purpose of qualifying period of pension. Thus, the petitioner has applied in the year 2020 for such benefit and submitted representation (Annexure P/7). Same was rejected vide order dated 26.3.2021 (Annexure P/10). Being aggrieved by the said order dated 26.3.2021, the present petition has been filed.

3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 15-A of 'Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976' (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for the sake of brevity), the twin conditions which have been provided for considering the cases of adhoc employee are that the ad-hoc appointee has been regularized on a regular post and his service during ad-hoc period has remained uninterrupted. It is submitted that though the respondents had given breaks to the services of the petitioner during adhoc period, but that break was artificial for two or three days, which cannot be considered to be interruption as provided in Rule 15-A of ' Rules' . Thus, on the basis of aforesaid contention prayed that the impugned order dated 26.3.2021 (Annexure P/10) is not in consonance with the law and deserves to be quashed by granting benefit to the petitioner of the period which he has served as adhoc from year 1977 to 1987 with further directions to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits accordingly.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that rule 15-A provides twin conditions, which is :- (1) the adhoc employee is appointed on the regular post and (2) his appointment is regularized without interruption in service. In the present case in hand, the petitioner's period of service during adhoc was interrupted for which table (Annexure R/2) has been filed to demonstrate that

how the petitioner has been given break for the period served on adhoc basis, which shows that on completion of a certain period, three days' break has been given to the petitioner. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner has been considered sympathetically by applying subsequent amendment of year 2020 of Rule 15-A , and the benefit of the period he served, which is preceding regularization after interruption, has been extended, accordingly 111 days of ad-hoc service tenure has been counted for the purpose of pensionary benefit. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid contention, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and pursed the record.

6. It is apt to consider the application of Rules of 1976 to the case of petitioner. Therefore, the unamended provision of Rule 15-A and amended Rule - 15-A of the 'Rules', w