MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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