Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Contractual Employees Entitled to Pension Benefits: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a judgment affirming the entitlement of contractual employees to pension benefits. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, dismissed the State of Himachal Pradesh’s appeal against a High Court decision granting pensionary benefits to contractual employees.

The judgment hinged on the interpretation of Rule 2 and Rule 17 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. The Court held that the opening phrase of Rule 2, “Save as otherwise provided in these rules,” allows the application of other provisions. Rule 17, which deals with counting of service on contract, was deemed applicable to the regularization of contractual employees and counting of their past service for pension purposes.

The Court rejected the argument presented by the State, which relied on Rule 2(g) to exclude contractual employees from pension benefits. The judges emphasized that Rule 17 was specifically designed to address cases where employees initially engaged on a contract basis were later regularized, allowing for the inclusion of their past contractual service for pension computation.

Justice Bhat, in the judgment, remarked, “The interpretation of Rule 17 aligns with the principles of fairness and equity, ensuring that contractual employees are not disadvantaged upon regularization.”

The Court further highlighted that the voluntariness of entering into contractual services was no longer applicable post-regularization, as the terms changed upon regularization.

As a result of this ruling, contractual employees who had their services regularized will now be able to count their past contractual service towards pension benefits. The Court issued directions for the State to facilitate the exercise of pension options by the concerned employees and to process these options within a stipulated timeframe.

This judgment underscores the Court’s commitment to upholding the rights of contractual employees and ensuring equitable treatment in matters of pension entitlement.

Date of Decision: 07th August, 2023

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.  vs SHEELA DEVI           

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/07-Aug-2023-Sheela_Vs_State-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News