Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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.           

Similar News