Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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