POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme 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