Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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