Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

Supreme Court Holds Work Charged Employees' Entire Service Cannot be Considered for Pension Calculation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the entire service rendered by work charged employees cannot be counted for the calculation of pension. The decision came in a batch of appeals challenging the validity of Rule 5(v) of the Work Charged Establishment Revised Service Conditions (Repealing) Rules, 2013.

The appeals were filed by work charged employees whose services were subsequently regularized under the Rules, 2013. The employees argued that their entire service rendered as work charged should be considered for the determination of the pension amount. They contended that their services were not qualitatively different from regular employees and should be given equal treatment.

The High Court of Patna had upheld Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013, which allowed the services rendered as work charged to be counted only to the extent of the shortfall in the qualifying period for pension. The entire period spent as work charged was not taken into account for pension calculation.

After careful consideration, the Supreme Court held that while the service rendered as work charged could be counted for qualifying service for pension, it cannot be considered for the actual pension amount. The Court distinguished between regular employees appointed on substantive posts and work charged employees working under the work charged establishment. It noted that work charged employees are not appointed through the usual selection process and, therefore, their services cannot be equated to those of regular employees.

The Court emphasized that after rendering service as work charged for a certain period, the employees cannot be denied pension solely on the ground that they have not completed the qualifying service. The Rules, 2013 recognized this and provided for the counting of work charged service to make employees eligible for pension if they were short of the qualifying period. The Court found Rule 5(v) to be beneficial in this regard.

The Court further clarified that the decision in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., which dealt with a different set of retirement benefit rules, did not apply to the calculation of the pension amount. It emphasized that the Prem Singh decision was limited to considering work charged service for qualifying service, not the actual pension calculation.

Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the validity of Rule 5(v) of the Rules, 2013. It held that the service rendered as work charged after regularization would be counted for the purpose of qualifying service for pension as per the rule.

Uday Pratap Thakur and Anr. Versus The State of Bihar and Ors.           

Latest Legal News