Ad-hoc service not qualifying for pension benefits: Delhi High Court

In a significant judgment delivered , the High Court of Delhi, comprising Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had granted pensionary benefits to Mithlesh Tyagi, an individual appointed on an ad-hoc basis as a Hindi Pradhyapak.

The original Tribunal order had directed that Tyagi’s service from January 21, 1983, to July 4, 2008, should be treated as qualifying for pensionary benefits, despite her appointment being on an ad-hoc basis and beyond the permissible age limit under Recruitment Rules. This directive came despite her numerous unsuccessful attempts for service regularization in various courts.

In its decisive judgment, the Delhi High Court clarified the legal position regarding the treatment of ad-hoc service for pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Court stated, “the engagement of the respondent was not substantive and it was not even temporary / officiating followed by a substantive appointment, so as to treat the period as qualifying service.”

Citing a precedent, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr. V. Smt. Magi H Desai, which clearly established that casual or contractual services cannot be equated with temporary or officiating services for the purpose of qualifying for pensionary benefits under the said rules.

The Court emphatically stated, “The Impugned order of the Tribunal dated January 23, 2020, is set aside,” thereby overturning the Tribunal’s earlier decision. The judgment is seen as a reaffirmation of the principle that ad-hoc appointments, not followed by substantive appointments, do not qualify for pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules.

 Date of Decision: January 11, 2024

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VS MITHLESH TYAGI