Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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