Ad Hoc Or Temporary Service Counts Toward Pension Only Under Pre-NPS Regime: J&K & Ladakh High Court Dismisses Petition By Post-2010 Appointees Seeking Qualifying Service Benefit
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed a petition seeking recognition of temporary service as qualifying service for pension, holding that employees appointed on or after 1 January 2010 fall under the New Pension Scheme and are not entitled to benefits available under the earlier pension framework. The case concerned a group of employees who had served on an ad hoc basis before being brought onto the regular establishment years later, and who sought to count their earlier service toward pension eligibility. The Bench clarified that temporary or ad hoc service can be treated as qualifying service only for employees covered by the pre-NPS pension regime, rendering the petitioners’ claim untenable.
The petitioners, eight in number, were engaged as Orderlies on an adhoc basis in the establishment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. After completing seven years of continuous service, they became eligible for regularization under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. However, the benefit of the Act was not extended to employees of the High Court establishment.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Court earlier, resulting in an order directing their regularization with effect from the date each had completed seven years of continuous service. Their regularization was granted in 2014 and 2015. Since they were appointed after 31.12.2009, they were brought under the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS), introduced by Government Notification SRO 400 dated 27.02.2009.
The petitioners submitted a representation to the Registrar General seeking recognition of their adhoc service from 2007–2008 as qualifying service for pension under the Old Pension Rules. The Registrar General rejected the representation on 12.06.2024, holding that employees appointed after 01.01.2010 are governed by NPS and that adhoc service cannot be counted. The petitioners challenged this communication, seeking directions to treat their adhoc service as qualifying service for pension under the earlier scheme.
The Court recorded: “The claim put forth by the petitioners to get out of the NPS is essentially premised on the argument that since their adhoc service has been followed by their regularization in the service of the High Court, as such, they shall be deemed to have been appointed not on the date with effect from which they were regularized on completion of seven years, but from the date they were initially engaged on adhoc basis.”
The Court stated: “From plain reading of SRO reproduced above, it clearly transpires that all State Government employees appointed on or after 01.01.2010 shall be governed by the New Pension Scheme. The rule further provides unequivocally that the existing Pension Rules i.e., the rules which were in operation prior to issuance of SRO 400 of 2009 shall not be applicable to Government employees appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010.”
It observed: “It, therefore, cannot be said by any stretch of reasoning or imagination that the petitioners were regularly appointed or stood brought on regular establishment prior to 01.01.2010 so as to extend them the benefit of Pension Rules as were in operation on the issuance of SRO 400 of 2009.”
The Court further recorded: “The argument is utterly misconceived and frivolous and, therefore, cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, the petitioners had been continuing as Orderlies on adhoc basis without there being even the post available for the purpose. They were accommodated by this Court by getting eight supernumerary posts created by the Government vide Order No. 236-JK(LD) of 2019 dated 16.12.2019.”
It stated: “The petitioners were thus not entitled to regularization any time prior to 01.01.2010 and, therefore, their claim to be governed by the Pension Rules as were in vogue on the date of issuance of SRO 400 of 2009 is grossly misconceived.”
The Court 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 Court stated: “In the instant case, the petitioners having been appointed after 01.01.2010 are not entitled to any pension and, therefore, reckoning of their adhoc services as qualifying service is inconsequential and totally meaningless. For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. Syed Ainain Qadiri, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Aatir Javed Kawoosa, Advocate
Case Title: Adnan Wani & Others vs High Court of J&K & Ladakh
Case Number: WP (C) No. 2578/2024
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar
