Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Findings: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Despite Negative Semen Report & Police Lapses High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Open University Degrees Obtained Prior To 2017 Cut-Off Must Be A Polluter Before Being Held Absolutely Liable: Supreme Court Sets Aside NGT Order Against Art Of Living Over Yamuna Event, Orders ₹5 Cr Refund Father Cannot Be Deprived Of Minor's Custody Unless Proved Unfit: Allahabad High Court Hands Over 4-Yr-Old Child To Father, Sets Aside Trial Court Order Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Integral To Personal Liberty': Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail As 24 Witnesses Remain Unexamined No Specific Chemical Opinion That Seized Substance Was Ganja: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal Under Section 2(iii)(b) NDPS Act Mere Pendency Of Criminal Cases Simplicitor No Ground For Externment': Karnataka High Court Quashes Raichur SDM Order Order VI Rule 16 CPC | Defendants Enjoy Greater Latitude In Altering Defence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Explains Doctrinal Leeway Under CPC Boarding Running Train Not Self-Inflicted Injury: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Order Denying Compensation Possession Of One Co-Sharer Is Possession Of All: J&K&L High Court Cannot Invoke Article 226 For Registering FIR Or Restoring Water Supply: Kerala High Court Natural Guardian's Sale Of Minor's Property Without Court Nod Is Voidable, Extinguishes If Not Challenged Within 3 Years Of Majority: Madras High Court Orissa High Court Rejects Cancer-Survivor Husband's Plea To Transfer Maintenance Case Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Defect In Served Copy Of Affidavit Not Fatal: Supreme Court Restores Election Petition Challenging Lok Sabha Poll Result, Clarifies Law On Form-25 Attestation

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