High Court Ruling on Pension for Temporary Employees
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a landmark judgment, holding that employees who rendered long and uninterrupted service on a part-time, temporary, or contractual basis before regularisation are entitled to have such service counted as qualifying service for pension purposes. Once that service is reckoned, they cannot be denied the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) merely because their regularisation occurred after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme (NPS).
The court also extended OPS benefits to another category of employees—those whose recruitment process commenced before the prescribed cut-off date but whose appointments were formalised later due to administrative delays. This ensures that such employees are not unfairly excluded from the more favorable OPS.
Justice Brar's Judgment on 95 Petitions
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar passed the ruling while disposing of a bunch of 95 writ petitions through a common judgment. The court classified the petitions into two categories. The first comprised employees appointed on part-time, temporary, or contractual basis before January 1, 2006, but regularised thereafter. They were seeking to count their pre-regularisation service for pension. The second category involved employees claiming OPS under the Haryana Government's office memorandum dated May 8, 2023, on the ground that they had been appointed against posts advertised before the introduction of the NPS.
Advocate Himanshu Malik, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the pre-regularisation service of the petitioners could not be ignored while determining their pensionary entitlement. He cited the settled legal position governing qualifying service and the state's own policy framework.
State's Contention Rejected
The state had contended that the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded part-time service from qualifying service for pension. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that the issue already stood concluded by the Division Bench judgment in the case of "State of Haryana versus Jai Bhagwan." Justice Brar observed that the Supreme Court, while dismissing the state's special leave petition, had kept the question of law open. Nevertheless, the Division Bench judgment continued to hold the field and remained binding on the High Court unless overruled or distinguished by a larger Bench.
Continuous Service Counted
Referring to specific petitions before the Bench, Justice Brar noted that one of the petitioners had rendered continuous service from February 15, 2002, on a part-time basis and continued to serve without any interruption for more than a decade before being regularised on May 16, 2016. The court asserted that it would result in manifest injustice if the valuable service rendered by the petitioner prior to regularisation was excluded from consideration for pensionary benefits merely because the initial engagement was on a part-time basis.
The ruling emphasises that the nature of initial engagement—whether part-time, temporary, or contractual—should not be a bar to counting such service as qualifying service for pension, provided the service was long and uninterrupted. This decision is expected to benefit thousands of employees across Haryana who have been in a similar situation.
Impact and Implications
The judgment sets a significant precedent for pension benefits in public employment. It clarifies that administrative delays or changes in pension schemes should not disadvantage employees who have dedicated years of service. The ruling also reinforces the principle that pension is a deferred wage and should be granted liberally to those who have served the state faithfully.
Legal experts believe that this decision may lead to similar claims in other states where employees face similar issues. The High Court's interpretation aligns with the broader objective of social justice and employee welfare.
