CCS Rules- Services Rendered As Contractual Employee Cannot Be Counted For The Purpose Of Pensionary Benefits: SC
The Supreme Court has held that since the proviso to Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was not applicable. the services rendered by a contractual employee cannot be counted for the purposes of pensionary benefits.
The Court held that neither the rules nor the regularization scheme provide that services rendered as casual/contractual shall be treated as temporary services and the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits.
The Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed, "The appellant – Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India is an autonomous independent department/body. As observed hereinabove, neither the rule nor the regularisation scheme provide that services rendered as casual/contractual shall be treated as temporary service and/or the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits."
Advocate Rajeev Sharma appeared for the appellant(s), and Neelam Singh, AOR appeared for the Respondent.
In this case, the Respondent was a general assistant on a contractual basis in the year 1985 till 1995 when her services culminated she filed an original application before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ahmedabad, which was partly allowed and from October 1990, she was being paid the same salary and other benefits with arrears that other regular General Assistants/Clerks were getting.
By a vide judgment of CAT, New Delhi, the original application was given the regular scale of Lower Division Clerk from the date of regularisation on the said post. Then aggrieved by this, the Respondent approached CAT, New Delhi where her Original application was dismissed.
She filed a petition with the Gujrat High court which raised a question that whether a contractual employee shall be liable to be counted as temporary service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for pensionary/retiral benefits. This petition was passed by the Gujrat High Court, while some directions were given to the respondents Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation (Appellant herein) to pay her the pension on her retirement.
Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Bench noted, "as per the clarification issued by the DOPT in the year 2009, it was clarified that such an appointee is not entitled to claim any benefit out of the services rendered by him/her on a contractual basis before he/she was appointed on regular basis on a government post".
Further, the bench held, "the High Court has committed a very serious error in observing that the services in temporary capacity will include the classes of temporary service such as casual or even contractual".
Setting the Judgment aside the bench noted, "As observed hereinabove, neither the rule nor the regularisation scheme provides that services rendered as casual/contractual shall be treated as temporary service and the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits."
Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court was quashed and set aside and the order of the Tribunal was restored and the appeal was allowed.
Cause Title: Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr. v. Smt. Magi H Desai
