No Prudent Man Would Keep Quiet For 15 Years: HP High Court Rejects Suit For Specific Performance Of Oral Agreement To Sell Merely Using A Knife In A Sudden Quarrel Does Not Automatically Establish Intent To Murder: Delhi High Court Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Violates Article 21: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail To Key Accused In Excise Policy Case Failure To Deposit Security Costs At Time Of Presentation Is An Incurable Defect Mandating Dismissal Of Election Petition: Bombay High Court Suppressing Call Records Because They "Go Against Prosecution" Creates Serious Infirmity: Madras HC Acquits Wife In Murder Case Rajasthan Appellate Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction To Hear Compulsory Retirement Disputes: High Court High Court Cannot Appreciate Evidence Or Decide Disputed Facts To Quash Criminal Case Under Section 482 CrPC: Madras High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Introduces 'Descending Scale Model' For POCSO Sentencing, Holds 'Younger The Victim, Higher The Sentence' Killing Over Land Dispute Without Premeditation Using Agricultural Tool Is Not Murder But Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Accused Cannot Be Discharged Merely On Ground Of Defective Or Tainted Investigation: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To End "Mahabharata" Matrimonial Battle, Quashes Lawyer-Husband's 80 Cases Against Wife And Her Advocates Grave Suspicion Sufficient To Frame Charge: J&K High Court Refuses To Discharge Officials In Kerosene Scam, Clarifies Second FIR Permissibility Defect Of Non-Speaking Review Order Cured If Appellate Court Examines And Reasons Out All Grounds: Delhi High Court Property Seller During Pendency Of Suit Does Not Lose Locus To Prosecute Case Unless Restrained By Court: Karnataka High Court Panchayat Lacks Power To Reject Factory Installation; Public Protest No Ground To Deny Statutory Permits: Kerala High Court

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