Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Holds Services Rendered as Contractual/Casual Employee Not Counted for Pensionary Benefits

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that services rendered as a contractual or casual employee cannot be counted for the purpose of calculating qualifying service for pensionary or retiral benefits. The judgment came in the case of Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr. v. Smt. Magi H Desai, where the appellant challenged a High Court decision that allowed the respondent's contractual services to be counted as temporary service for pension calculations.

The Division Bench of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar observed that Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, clearly states that qualifying service commences from the date of substantive, officiating, or temporary appointment. The court emphasized that casual or contractual service cannot be equated with temporary service, and only services rendered in a substantive or temporary capacity can be considered as qualifying service.

In the judgment, Justice Shah remarked, "The High Court has materially erred in observing that the services in temporary capacity will include the classes of temporary service such as casual or even contractual. The question is not whether the services rendered by a contractual employee would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity. The question is, whether, in fact, such contractual employee rendered the services as temporary or not."

The court further pointed out that the respondent's claim for counting 50% of her services rendered as a casual or contractual employee lacked any statutory provision to support it. While the respondent cited similar schemes in other departments, the court clarified that the absence of such a scheme in the appellant's department, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India, prevented her from claiming the same benefit.

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the order of the Tribunal, which had dismissed the respondent's original application seeking pensionary benefits for her casual/contractual services. The court concluded that the respondent's services rendered before her regular appointment on March 31, 1995, could not be considered for pension calculations.

The judgment reinforces the distinction between temporary and casual/contractual services in determining qualifying service for pensionary benefits. It clarifies that only services rendered on a substantive or temporary basis, as recognized by the rules and relevant schemes, can be counted towards pension calculations.

Date of Decision: March 24, 2023

Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr.    vs Smt. Magi H Desai  

Latest Legal News