Ending the 'Hire and Fire' Policy: Why Service Breaks Cannot Deny Pension Rights

In a significant ruling for government employees in Madhya Pradesh, the High Court at Jabalpur has clarified the standards for counting ad-hoc service periods toward pensionary benefits. Justice Deepak Khot, presiding over the case of Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia v. State of M.P. , held that arbitrary "fictional" breaks in an employee's service history cannot be used as a legal pretext to deny them the benefits accumulated over decades of duty.

The Case Background: A Decade of Ad-hoc Service

Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia, a lecturer of Physics, was appointed as an ad-hoc lecturer at Government College, Bina, on March 5, 1977. His tenure as an ad-hoc employee lasted until his regularization on March 4, 1987. Following a career that culminated in his promotion to Professor, Dr. Bukharia retired on December 31, 2009.

Years after his retirement, in 2020, Dr. Bukharia sought to count his ten years of ad-hoc service toward his total pensionable service—a total of 33 years. His representation was rejected by the state authorities, who relied on service records showing brief, periodic gaps in his employment during his ad-hoc years.

The Fictional Break Controversy

During the proceedings, the State argued that Rule 15-A of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 , necessitates "uninterrupted" service for ad-hoc periods to qualify for pension. They contended that Dr. Bukharia’s service records demonstrated periodic 3-day breaks, effectively disqualifying those years for pension calculation purposes.

Justice Khot, however, looked past the technical interpretation, labeling these gaps as "fictional" breaks. The Court revisited established legal doctrines, specifically the Rattan Lal v. State of Haryana (1985) verdict, which strongly criticized state policies that use artificial gaps to avoid granting career benefits to ad-hoc staff.

Legal Analysis: Precedent Over Technicality

The Court’s decision rested on two primary pillars:

1. Non-Retrospectivity of 2020 Amendments: The State attempted to apply a 2020 amendment to Rule 15-A, which specified circumstances under which ad-hoc service might count. The Court firmly rejected this, noting that because Dr. Bukharia retired in 2009, the unamended rules applicable at the time of his retirement must govern his case.
2. Affirmation of Service Continuity: Citing the Division Bench ruling in Geeta Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1988), the Court reiterated that if an employee is otherwise regularized, minor interruptions created by the employer's "hire and fire" policy do not constitute a break in the nature of the service itself.

Key Observations

The judgment offers clear guidance on the rights of long-serving employees:

• "It is clear that such Hire and Fire Policy contemplating breaks in the services of adhoc employee was found to be unjustified, and services of adhoc employee with such artificial break was found to be continuous for the purpose of pensionary benefits."
• "The petitioner has been regularized considering the period of adhoc, thus cannot be made basis denying counting of period of adhoc services for pensionary benefits."
• "The amendment in the 'Rules' which was incorporated in the year 2020 has not been made applicable retrospectively."

Final Outcome and Implications

The High Court quashed the rejection order dated March 26, 2021, and directed the respondents to recalculate Dr. Bukharia’s pension, including the entire ad-hoc period from 1977 to 1987. The respondents have been given three months to complete this process.

This ruling provides a robust safeguard for retired employees who have faced similar denials, reinforcing that the essence of public service—continuity and dedication—cannot be undermined by administrative bookkeeping tricks aimed at stripping away post-retirement security. It serves as a precedent for future litigation involving employees whose early-career status was characterized by the now-condemned "hire and fire" employment model.