Civil Service Rules | Regularized Employee Can't Be Denied Pension Citing Artificial Breaks In Ad-Hoc Service: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court directed the State to treat the ad-hoc service of a Physics lecturer, working in a Government College in District Sagar, as continuous service for pension purposes.

The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed that the artificial break during his ad hoc service was 'fictional'. It held,

"...the breaks which were given during adhoc period of the petitioner were fictional. The petitioner has been regularized considering the period of adhoc, thus cannot be made basis denying counting of period of adhoc services for pensionary benefits".

The petitioner, Arun Prakash Bukharia, was appointed as the ad-hoc Physics lecturer for Government College in District Sagar on March 5, 1977 and continued his service till March 4, 1987. He was subsequently promoted to the post of professor and retired on December 31, 2009.

According to the petitioner, the Government had previously resolved the issue of counting ad-hoc service towards qualifying service for pension. Relying on this, he applied for benefits in 2020 and submitted a presentation, which was rejected by an order dated March 2021.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that Rule 15 A of the MP Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976, lays down twin conditions for counting ad-hoc service for pension; the ad-hoc appointee has been regularized on a regular post, and his service during the ad-hoc period has remained uninterrupted.

It was contended that the short breaks of two or three days given during the petitioner's ad-hoc tenure were artificial and should not be treated as interruptions under Rule 15A.

The bench noted that although the petitioner did serve continuously in substance, he was periodically given a short break. Referring to the case of Geeta Shrivastava v State of MP [1988 MPLJ 192] and Ratan Lal v State of Haryana [1985 4 SCC 43], the court reiterated that such 'Hire and Fire' policy creating artificial breaks in ad-hoc service was unjustified and that such breaks must be treated as continuous for the purpose of pension.

The court further observed that, while the petitioner was granted the benefit of 111 days based on the 2020 amendment to the Rules, this amendment was not retrospective in effect. Since the petitioner retired in 2009, the unamended Rule 15A was applicable.

Relying on the case of Geeta Shrivastava (supra) and Ratan Lal (supra), the bench held that since the petitioner was regularized considering the period of adhoc, he therefore cannot be the basis for denying the counting of this period for pension benefits.

The court therefore held that the petitioner's ad-hoc service must be treated as continuous for pension purposes and thus quashed the impugned order of March 26, 2021. The respondents were further directed to count the petitioner's entire ad-hoc service towards pension.

Case Title: Dr Arun Prakash Bukharia v State of MP [WP-10214-2021]

For Petitioner: Advocate Shubham Manchani

For State: Advocates Teerathraj Pillai and Supriya Singh

Click here to read/download the Order