Kiran Raj

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that the contractual service rendered by employees prior to their regularization must be considered as qualifying service for both pensionary benefits and annual increments under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Court observed that such exclusion undermines fairness and violates principles established through binding precedents.

The petitioners, initially appointed as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) on a contractual basis and later regularized, filed the writ petition challenging the respondents’ order that limited the recognition of their contractual service to pensionary benefits alone. The denial of its consideration for annual increments was specifically contested.

The petitioners cited multiple binding judicial decisions, including Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Jagdish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and Prabha Kanwar v. State of Himachal Pradesh, where similar matters had been adjudicated in favor of employees. They argued that there is no legal distinction between service rendered under a contractual appointment and regularized service for the purposes of pensionary benefits and increments when performed without interruption.

The respondents contended that while they had partially recognized the contractual service for pension purposes, extending it to increments would be financially burdensome and was not legally mandated.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, presiding over the matter, referred to earlier decisions that had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Court stated:

"Contractual service rendered by employees prior to regularization, if performed continuously and without interruption on the same post, must be counted for both annual increments and pensionary benefits."

The Court further noted:

"The exclusion of contractual service from the calculation of annual increments while recognizing it for pension purposes is inconsistent and arbitrary, violating the principles of equal treatment under established law."

The judgment also referenced Supreme Court orders in Jagdish Chand and Prabha Kanwar, where the apex court had declined to interfere with the High Court’s rulings affirming similar rights for contractual employees.

The Court observed that temporary and contractual appointments are often used as a method to deprive employees of legitimate benefits and stated that judicial intervention is necessary to uphold equitable treatment.

The High Court issued the following directives:

1. Contractual service rendered by the petitioners prior to their regularization shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of annual increments.

2. The benefits arising from this inclusion will be restricted to a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition, in accordance with established legal principles on delayed claims.

3. The competent authority is directed to calculate and extend the applicable benefits to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

4. The respondents are required to communicate the compliance report to the petitioners upon completion of the process.

The Court relied on binding precedents, including:

1. Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh: Held that contractual service must be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits upon regularization.

2. Jagdish Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh: Established that contractual service qualifies for both pensionary benefits and annual increments.

3. Prabha Kanwar v. State of Himachal Pradesh: Affirmed the right of contractual employees to have their service recognized for increments and pension calculations, with financial benefits limited to three years prior to the filing of the petition.

Case Title: Som Dutt & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr.
Case Number: CWP No. 14870/2024
Bench: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

[View/Download order]