Service in Privately Funded Project Doesn't Count for Pension Quantum After Fresh Appointment via Advertisement: Allahabad High Court - 2025-08-13

Allahabad HC: Service in Privately Funded Project Not Countable for Pension Quantum After Fresh Appointment

The court distinguished between 'qualifying service' for pension eligibility and 'service for computation' of pension amount, dismissing the plea on grounds of both law and discrimination.

Allahabad, India – In a significant ruling on service law, the Allahabad High Court has held that an employee's service in a privately funded project cannot be counted for calculating the quantum of pension if it is followed by a fresh appointment to the regular establishment through a separate selection process.

Justice J.J. Munir, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Kanak Srivastava, widow of a former Banaras Hindu University (BHU) employee, clarified the crucial distinction between service that makes an employee eligible for pension (‘qualifying service’) and the total service period used to compute the final pension amount.

The court dismissed the petitioner's plea for a higher pension, which was based on a claim of parity with a junior colleague and the inclusion of her late husband's prior service in a project.

Background of the Case

The petition was filed by Kanak Srivastava, the widow of the late Prakash Chandra Srivastava, who retired as a Junior Medical Social Worker from BHU's Institute of Medical Sciences on August 31, 2005. The core grievance was that BHU, while calculating his pension, only considered his regular service from August 28, 1986, to his retirement date.

The petitioner argued that the University unfairly excluded nearly seven years of service rendered by her husband in the 'CBD Project' from 1981 to 1986. This exclusion, she claimed, resulted in a lower pension and was a case of hostile discrimination, as a colleague, M.C. Joshi, who joined later, allegedly received a higher pension.

After her husband's death in 2019, Mrs. Srivastava continued the legal battle, challenging orders from the BHU administration that had rejected her husband's representations.

Arguments from Both Sides

• Petitioner's Arguments: Mr. Siddharth Khare, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the project service should be counted for pensionary benefits under Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972. He contended that BHU had set a precedent by counting project services for other employees and cited several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including Prem Singh v. State of U.P. , to argue that such temporary service should be reckoned. The primary claim was that non-inclusion of the project service led to discriminatory treatment compared to his colleague M.C. Joshi.

• Respondent's (BHU) Arguments: Senior Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, representing BHU, countered that Mr. Srivastava’s employment in the CBD Project was entirely separate from his university service. He emphasized that the project was funded by a private entity (Family Planning Association, Bombay) and that Mr. Srivastava joined the regular university service on August 28, 1986, only after applying through a public advertisement and undergoing a fresh selection process. The University further clarified that the comparison with M.C. Joshi was factually incorrect. Joshi had joined the university's regular establishment on a temporary basis in 1979, years before Srivastava, and retired much later in 2010, naturally leading to a higher pay scale and pension.

Court's Analysis and Legal Reasoning

Justice Munir meticulously dismantled the petitioner's arguments, drawing a sharp line between different types of pre-regularization service.

1. On Counting Project Service: The Court found that the precedents cited by the petitioner, such as the case of Fast Track Court judges ( Mahesh Chandra Verma ), were inapplicable. In those cases, the employees were appointed through a defined selection process and later absorbed into the regular cadre. In contrast, Mr. Srivastava’s case was one of fresh recruitment. The judgment noted:

"In the present case, Srivastava was employee of a project called the CBD... There is little doubt that this project was funded by private sources and not an employment in the establishment of the BHU... More than that is the fact that Srivastava joined the establishment of the University as a regular employee, after he applied for the post... pursuant to an advertisement issued by the University, leading to his selection and appointment. There is just no way how services of Srivastava rendered with the CBD Project... could be taken into reckoning to determine his total length of service for the purpose of computation of his pension."

2. Distinction Between 'Qualifying Service' and 'Service for Computation': The court underscored a fundamental legal principle, distinguishing between service that counts towards pension eligibility and service that determines the pension amount. Citing the Supreme Court in Uday Pratap Thakur , the judgment stated:

"There is a fundamental distinction between 'qualifying service' and that involving in the reckoning of 'total period of service rendered outside the regular establishment'... for the purpose of computation of pension... Project Services have never been countenanced for the purpose of determining the total length of service in order to determine the quantum of pension payable."

The court noted that Mr. Srivastava had already completed the required 'qualifying service' in the regular establishment and was receiving a pension. His widow's claim was for a higher quantum, which the court found was not tenable by including the project service.

3. On the Discrimination Plea: The court found the plea of discrimination vis-à-vis M.C. Joshi to be "factually ill-founded." It established that Joshi joined the university's regular service in 1979, seven years before Srivastava, and retired five years after him. Their service tenures and final pay scales were vastly different, making any comparison for parity invalid.

Final Verdict

Concluding that the petitioner's claims were not supported by law or facts, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The court affirmed that the university's decision to exclude the privately funded project service from the calculation of Mr. Srivastava's pension quantum was legally sound and did not constitute discrimination.

The court held, "In considering all these facts, issues and circumstances, besides the law, which bears on the point, we do not find it to be a fit case for the grant of relief in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."