Ad Hoc Or Temporary Service Counts Toward Pension Only For Employees Governed By Pre-NPS Rules: J&K&L High Court

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified that temporary or ad hoc service can be counted as qualifying service for pension only in cases where the employee is governed by the pension regime that existed before the New Pension Scheme (“NPS”) came into force.

The ruling came while examining whether ad hoc service rendered before regularisation could be used to confer pensionary benefits upon employees appointed under the NPS framework.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by eight employees seeking a direction for treating their earlier ad hoc service as qualifying service, and for extension of pension benefits under the Pension Rules that were in force before the New Pension Scheme was effected.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, while rejecting the contention raised by the petitioners, observed: “The question of treating the services rendered on adhoc basis as qualifying service for pension is totally irrelevant in the context of controversy raised in this petition. It is only in the case of a Government employee who is governed by the Pension Rules which were in operation prior to issuance of NPS, the part of services rendered on temporary or adhoc basis can be treated as a qualifying service so as to enable an employee falling short of qualifying service to the benefit of pension.”

The petitioners had been engaged as Orderlies on an ad hoc basis in the establishment of the High Court. After completing seven years of continuous ad hoc service, they were regularised pursuant to the directions of a Division Bench rendered in February 2020. By virtue of these regularisations, their substantive appointments took effect in 2014 and 2015.

Since their regular appointment dates fell after 01.01.2010, the petitioners came under the ambit of the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme notified through SRO-400 of 2009 issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir.

Aware of this position, the petitioners submitted a representation asserting that their initial ad hoc engagement from 2007–2008 should be counted as qualifying service, thereby entitling them to the Old Pension Scheme.

The Registrar General of the High Court rejected their representation on the ground that the petitioners had been brought onto the regular establishment only after the NPS cut-off date.

Challenging this communication, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, upon hearing the matter, examined the statutory framework under SRO-400 of 2009, which mandates that all State Government employees “appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010” shall be governed exclusively by the NPS.

The Court noted that the petitioners acquired eligibility for regularisation only after completing seven years of continuous ad hoc service, leading to their substantive appointments in 2014 and 2015. Thus, their induction into regular service indisputably occurred after the cut-off date stipulated in the NPS notification.

Rejecting the petitioners' contention that their service should relate to their initial ad hoc engagement before 01.01.2010, the Bench held that such an argument was “utterly misconceived”. The Court emphasised that the petitioners had been accommodated against supernumerary posts created only in 2019, and that regularisation could not have been granted at any time before their eligibility matured.

The Bench further clarified that the principle of counting ad hoc service as a qualifying service for pension is relevant only where an employee is already covered under the Old Pension Rules.

Since the petitioners' regularisation occurred after 01.01.2010, the Court held that they did not fall within the category of employees governed by the pre-NPS pension regime. Therefore, treating their ad hoc service as a qualifying service was found to be “inconsequential and totally meaningless.”

Consequently, holding that the petitioners were substantively appointed only after the NPS cut-off date, the Court ruled that they were governed by the New Pension Scheme and could not seek coverage under the Old Pension Rules.

Concluding that the question of counting their ad hoc service for qualifying pension did not arise, the High Court accordingly dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Adnan Wani & Others v. High Court of J&K & Ladakh

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment