Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Kiran M Patel vs Central Administrative Tribunal (Cat) on 6 May, 2026
::1 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.120/40/2023
Dated this the 6th day of May, 2026.
Reserved on : 27.03.2026
Pronounced on : 06.05.2026
CORAM : Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
Shri Kiran S/o. Mukundray Patel
Age 62 years, retired Section Officer of the respondents
Residing at : 1, Smruti Bungalow, Bapudas Estate,
Ahmedabad Nr. Vijay Char Rasta, Navrangpura,
Bench
Ahmedabad - 380 009............................ Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr.M.S.Trivedi)
Versus
1. The Principal Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
61/35, Copernicus Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Pay and Account Officer
O/o. PAO, Central Administrative Tribunal
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Old CIC Building, Old JNU Campus,
Nr, Post Office, Munirika,
New Delhi - 110 067.
3. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad
Opp. Sardar Patel Stadium
Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009.......... Respondents
( By Advocate : Ms. R.R.Patel )
2026.05.07
P ANUKUMA
16:05:37+05'30'
::2 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (Judicial) The grievance of the applicant in the instant OA is that despite having rendered continuous service from 12.08.1986, initially on an ad hoc basis and later regularized without interruption from 01.11.1989, the respondents, the respondents have arbitrarily excluded the ad hoc period from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 from qualifying service for pension. This exclusion has been made at the stage of retirement, contrary to earlier official certification recognizing the entire period as qualifying service, and without properly considering the applicant's representation, thereby resulting in denial of full Ahmedabad Bench pensionary benefits. Thus, the applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and seeks the following reliefs:
"(A) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow / admit this application.
(B) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/ declare that impugned ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional action on the part of the respondents regarding not counting service of the applicant from 12.08.1986 to 31.03.2021 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits is non-est in the eyes of law.
(C ) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to hold/ declare that the impugned inaction on the part of the respondents not considering the just, legal and proper request of the applicant dated 07.04.2022 is non-est in the eyes of law.
(D) That the Hon'ble Tribunal further be pleased to direct the respondents to give / grant benefits of adhoc service of the applicant from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 for pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits including 12% interest thereon.
(E) Any such other and further relief that may be deemed fit and proper may be given."
2026.05.07
P ANUKUMA
16:05:37+05'30'
::3 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as under :
2.1 It is stated that vide order dated 12.08.1986, the applicant was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench on ad hoc basis in the pay scale of Rs.330-560 + D.A. and other admissible allowances w.e.f. 11.08.1986. Accordingly, he joined his service as UDC on 12.08.1986.
Ahmedabad Bench 2.2 Subsequently, vide order dated 08.06.1992, the ad hoc service as U.D.C was regularized in the scale of Rs.1200- 2040 w.e.f. 01.11.1989.
2.3 It is further stated that on completion of 25 years uninterrupted regular service from 12.08.1986 to 31.03.2012 under the respondent No.3, the said service record of the applicant was verified by the respondents in terms of the provision of Rule 32 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and determined the qualifying service of the applicant. Accordingly, by referring the PAO Letter dated 23.04.2013 the respondent No.3 in this regard had issued the Statutory Form - No.24 [as per Rule 32 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972] i.e. Certificate of verification of service for pension to the applicant vide communication dated 07.05.2023 (Annexure A/4). The said certificate reads as under:-
"CERTIFICATE " It is clarified, in consultation with the Pay and Account Officer, that Shri K.M.Patel, Section Officer/ Court Officer has completed a qualifying service of 25 years, 07 months 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::4 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 and 20 days as on 31.03.2012 as per details given below. The service has been verified on the basis of his service documents and in accordance with the rules regarding qualifying service in force at present. The verification of service under sub rules(1) & (2) of Rule 32 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, shall be treated as final and shall not be re-opened except when necessitated by the subsequent chance in the rules and orders governing the conditions under which the service qualifies for pension.
Details of Qualifying Service From : 12.08.1986 To : 31.03.2012.
Ahmedabad Bench Authority : PAO Letter No.PAO/CAT/SV/K.M.P/12-13/103 dated 23.4.2013 ______________________ 2.4 Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. on 31.03.2021, the office of the respondent No.3, the pension paper of the applicant were forwarded to the Pay & Account Officer, CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi vide communication dated 23.04.2021. In response to it, the office of PAO informed the respondent No.3 that the applicant service was regulraised w.e.f. 01.11.1989 as UDC and interrupted ad hoc service from 12.08.1986 required to be regularized. In this regard, the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 10.05.2021 (Annexure A/2), had informed the Pay & Account Officer, CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi that in the case of Smt. V.B.Shukla, who was initially appointed as L.D.C on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 3.6.1992 and later regularized in the grade without interruption on 11.09.1995, as well Shri T.G.Purohit, was initiated appointed on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 04.08.1987 and later he was regularised in the grade w.e.f. 1.11.1989.
2026.05.07
P ANUKUMA
16:05:37+05'30'
::5 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
The Principal Bench vide its letter dated 09.4.2021 has clarified that the uninterrupted service of the aforesaid employee can be treated as temporary service and the qualifying service may be counted from the continuous uninterrupted initial ad hoc appointments. In the case of Shri K.M.Patel, Section Officer, (applicant herein) was also initially appointed as U.D.C on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 12.8.1986 and later regularized in the grade without interruption on 1.11.1989. Further, it is also stated in the said communication that as per the chapter-III, Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 when officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by the Ahmedabad Bench substantive appointment in the same or another service, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes the charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in as officiating or temporary capacity. Therefore, it was requested to finalise the pension case of the applicant taking into account uninterrupted ad hoc service of the applicant herein (Annexure A/2).
2.5 However, the uninterrupted adhoc service period of the applicant from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 has not been considered by the office of the PAO as the qualifying service for the pension, the applicant again submitted detailed representation dated 07.04.2022 and by referring the details of service of the applicant and the provision of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 as well as the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in respect to reckoning of continuous ad hoc service followed by the regularisation as qualifying service, accordingly, requested the respondents to take into account the ad hoc 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::6 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 service period of the applicant as qualifying service for calculation of pensionary benefits (Annexure A/1).
Since the respondents did not consider the lawful claim of the applicant in spite of repeated request, hence, the present OA.
3. On receipt of the notice issued by this Tribunal, Ms. R.R. Patel, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents and filed reply and opposed the claim of the applicant.
STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 3.1 It is submitted that during the time when the Central Ahmedabad Bench Administrative Tribunals came into force in the year 1985, the Tribunals were established in different parts of India. At the relevant point of time, since, the Tribunal was the newly formed organization, there was extreme shortage of staff and Recruitment Rules for the various posts were under process of framing. In the circumstances, the applicant was appointed as UDC on ad hoc basis in accordance with the O.M dated 29.10.1975. Thus, the applicant was appointed vide Order dated 12.08.1986 (Annexure-R/1) purely on ad hoc basis in the scale Rs. 330-560/-. As per the said OM dated 29.10.1975 (Annexure-R/2), ad hoc appointments don't bestow any claim on the person for regular appointment nor confer any other right. Hence, the question of counting ad hoc service for the purpose of pensionary benefits would not arise at all.
3.2 Further, the ad hoc services rendered by the applicant as UDC was regularized by the then Hon'ble Chairman w.e.f. 01.11.1989 vide Office Order dated 08.06.1992 (Annexure-R/3). Therefore, the ad hoc period cannot be treated as qualifying service. Even otherwise, the belated 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::7 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 claim for regularization of ad hoc period cannot be entertained.
3.3 Further, it is submitted that it is not in dispute that the uninterrupted services w.e.f. 12.08.1986 to 31.03.2012 were verified on the basis of service records, but, as far as ad hoc services w.e.f. 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 is concerned, counting the same as qualifying service, there is no provision in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, nor in the amended Rules of the year 2021 which provide that, such ad hoc services may be counted for any purpose including pensionary benefits. In absence of any such Ahmedabad statutory provision, purely ad hoc services of the Bench applicant cannot be counted for pensionary benefits. It may be submitted that ad hoc service would not encompass within the words, "officiating or temporary or substantive capacity" as occurring in Rule-13 of the CCS (Pension), Rules. Meaning of 'Ad hoc' is when needed or required. This means no charge of the post shall be given either substantively, officiating or temporarily. Therefore, it is submitted that the period spent as ad hoc basis cannot be regularized/counted for pensionary benefits.
3.4 The respondents by placing reliance on the Order dated 08.09.2021 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 446/2014 in the case of Ms. M. H. Desai wherein it was held that service rendered as casual/contractual employee cannot be termed as qualifying service and cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. The said order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide its Judgment dated 17.02.2022 passed in R/SCA No.14592/2021 and directed that the services rendered as contractual shall be liable to be counted as temporary 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::8 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service in accordance with the rules. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of preferring Civil Appeal No. 1787/2023 and vide judgment dated 24.03.2023, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the Order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.446/2014.
The respondents also relied upon another judgment dated 31.08.1994 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 1985 SC 962 wherein the Hon'ble Ahmedabad Apex Court held that continuous service by itself does Bench not give right to claim regularization.
3.5 Further, it is submitted that even though the clarification has been sought by the respondent No.3 with respect to the Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, but the fact remains that the applicant was neither appointed in substantive capacity nor in officiating capacity nor in temporary capacity at all on 12.08.1986. It is reiterated that initially the applicant herein was appointed purely on ad hoc basis, which does not bestow upon any right to a post. His ad hoc services were regularized w.e.f. 01.11.1989. Therefore, his regular qualifying service has to be counted w.e.f. 01.11.1989 and rightly done as such.
3.6 It is further submitted that the applicant has preferred the representation dated 07.04.2022 which neither contained any new facts nor incorporated any provision under which his ad hoc service w.e.f. 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 may be regularized. Therefore, the grievance of the applicant could not be entertained.
2026.05.07
P ANUKUMA
16:05:37+05'30'
::9 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
3.7 Further, it is submitted that Rule 14(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 clearly provides that the service of a Government Servant shall not qualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government or under the conditions determined by the Government. In the case in hand, the applicant was appointed as U.D.C. purely on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 12.08.1986. His ad hoc services was regularised w.e.f. 01.11.1989 vide Office Order dated 08.06.1992 in view of the directions issued by the Principal Bench, New Delhi vide Order No. PB/1/36/91- Estt dated 22.04.1991. Therefore, the applicant entered in the grade of UDC w.e.f. 1.11.1989. In other words, the Ahmedabad Bench applicant was appointed on substantive post only w.e.f. 1.11.1989 and therefore, the qualifying service for pensionary benefits has been rightly considered from the date he entered in the grade of UDC. Accordingly, the regular service of the applicant has been counted from 01.11.1989 to 31.03.2021 as qualifying service for the purpose for pensionary benefits and there is no ambiguity or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents.
3.8 It is submitted that it is clear from the DoP&T's OM No. 28036/8/87-Estt.(D) dated 30.03.1988 (Annexure-R/6 refer) that any matter of extension of ad hoc period beyond one year shall be required prior approval of DoP&T and in case of non-receipt of approval of DoP&T within the year, the ad hoc appointment shall cease on expiry of one year. The ad hoc service spent by the applicant w.e.f. 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 was not regularized. Therefore, the grounds raised by the applicant are not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be turned down.
2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::10 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 3.9 The respondents further submit that the applicant has sought to rely upon the provisions of Rules 15 & 18 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 15 provides as to counting of service on probation, whereas, Rule 18 provides counting of pre-retirement civil service in case of re-employed Government servant. Both the provisions have no relevance/applicability to the case of the applicant, in as much as, applicant's case relates to the non-regularized of services rendered purely on ad hoc basis and in fact, in this regard, there is no provision in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Ahmedabad 3.10 Further, the respondents submitted that the applicant has Bench not exhausted all the remedies available to him, in as much as, he did not prefer even a single representation to regularize his ad hoc services for the period in question in entire three decades of service.
Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder as well as written submission reiterating the same averments which he has mentioned in the OA.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
6. Learned counsel for the applicant draws our the attention to the Annexure A/4 in respect of "Form of Certificate of Verification of Service for Pension" and submits that due to this certificate, it has been declared that the applicant has completed a qualifying service of 25 years, 07 months, 20 months as on 31.03.2012 as 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::11 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 per the service documents and in accordance with the rules regarding qualifying service in force.
Further, it provides that the verification of service under sub rules (1) and (2) of Rule 32 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, shall be treated as final and shall not be re-opened except when necessitated by a subsequent change in the rules and order governing the conditions under which the service qualified for pension. Since there is no change in the rules and order governing the conditions for counting qualified service for pension and now it is not open for the respondents to reopen the issue and be treated as final.
Ahmedabad Bench 7. Learned counsel for the applicant place reliance upon para 6, 7 & 8 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of S.D.Jayaprakash & Ors. V/s. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2025 INSC594, as well as another judgment dated 13.1.2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in case of Ajendar Kumar Rai v/s. State of U.P. & Ors. in Writ -A No.25603/2009.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
8. The learned counsel for the respondents contends that the applicant was initially appointed purely on an ad hoc basis on 12.08.1986 under the applicable O.M. dated 29.10.1975, which explicitly stipulates that such appointment does not confer any right to regular appointment or other service benefits, including pension. It is submitted that the applicant's services were regularized only w.e.f. 01.11.1989 vide order dated 08.06.1992, and this date of regularization was never challenged during his entire service tenure, thereby attaining finality.
8.1 Learned counsel further argued that the present claim, raised after more than three decades, is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the cause of action, if any, arose in 1992 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::12 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 when regularization was effected. The respondents submitted that there is no provision under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for counting ad hoc service as qualifying service, and such service does not fall within the ambit of "substantive, officiating, or temporary service" under Rule 13. Hence, exclusion of the period from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 is legally justified.
8.2 The respondents' counsel also contends that the earlier verification of service by the PAO in 2013 was erroneous and rightly corrected at the time of pension finalization. The applicant's representation dated 07.04.2022 did not Ahmedabad raise any new legal grounds and was, therefore, not liable Bench to be entertained. It is further submitted that the applicant failed to seek regularization of his ad hoc service during his tenure and has not exhausted available remedies.
8.3 Reliance is placed on above cited judicial precedents to argue that ad hoc or contractual service cannot be counted for pension and that mere continuous service does not create a right to regularization. Accordingly, it is submitted that the qualifying service has been correctly computed from 01.11.1989 till retirement, and the Original Application, being devoid of merit and barred by delay, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
ANALYSIS
9. Having heard the contentions of the parties and having regard to the pleadings of the parties on record, it emerges that the applicant was initially appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) on 12.08.1986 purely on ad hoc basis. His services were subsequently regularized with effect from 01.11.1989 vide Office Order dated 08.06.1992. It is not in dispute that the applicant continued in service without any break from the date 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::13 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 of his initial appointment, i.e., 12.08.1986 till his superannuation on 31.03.2021, when he retired from the post of Section Officer. It is further an admitted position that a Certificate of Verification of Service for Pension (Form 24) dated 07.05.2013 was issued on the basis of the Pay and Accounts Office letter dated 23.04.2013, wherein the qualifying service of the applicant was reckoned from 12.08.1986 to 31.03.2012 and he was shown to have completed 25 years, 07 months and 20 days of qualifying service. It is also not disputed that the applicant did not challenge the order of regularization dated 08.06.1992 fixing the date of regularization as 01.11.1989 at any point during his service tenure. At the time of retirement, Ahmedabad Bench however, the Pay and Accounts Office raised an objection vide communication dated 23.04.2021 stating that the earlier reckoning of qualifying service from 12.08.1986 was erroneous, and consequently, the period from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989, being ad hoc in nature, was excluded from the qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 07.04.2022 seeking inclusion of the said period, which was not acceded to by the respondents.
Thus, the controversy in the present case lies in a narrow compass as to whether the period of service rendered by the applicant on ad hoc basis from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
10. The controversy, as noticed, lies in a narrow compass i.e. whether the ad hoc service rendered by the applicant from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989, followed by regularization without break, is liable to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, particularly in light of (i) the CCS 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::14 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 (Pension) Rules, 1972; (ii) the effect of service verification under Rule 32; and (iii) the judicial precedents relied upon by the parties.
11. It is profitable to mention that the Statutory Scheme relating to grant of pensionary benefits enumerated under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The determination of qualifying service is governed primarily by Rule 13 which stipulates that - Service qualifies if rendered in a substantive, officiating, or temporary capacity. Rule 14 - Service qualifies only if duties and pay are regulated by the Government and Rule 32 - Verification of qualifying service, which attains finality subject to limited Ahmedabad Bench exceptions.
12. A plain reading of the aforesaid rules suggests that "ad hoc service" is not expressly included within the categories of "substantive, officiating, or temporary service." The respondents have relied heavily on this distinction to contend that ad hoc service stands excluded per se. However, such a literal exclusion is not conclusive, and the issue has been consistently examined by Hon'ble Courts in the context of continuity of service, nature of appointment, and subsequent regularization.
13. It is an admitted position that the applicant rendered continuous service without break from 12.08.1986 till retirement and his services were regularized, though prospectively from 01.11.1989 vide Office Order dated 08.06.1992.
14. The legal question, therefore, is not merely about the label "ad hoc", but whether such service in substance partakes the character of qualifying service once regularization occurs without interruption.
2026.05.07
P ANUKUMA
16:05:37+05'30'
::15 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
15. In S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in this recent judgment relied upon by the applicant, has emphasized that Pension is not a bounty but a deferred wage linked to length of service and where an employee has rendered long, continuous, and uninterrupted service, denial of benefits on technical or artificial classifications may not be justified. The Hon'ble Supreme Court adopted a substance-over-form approach, especially where the employee ultimately stands regularized. The ratio that emerges is that the nature of service must be examined holistically, and not merely by nomenclature such as "ad hoc". For facility of reference, the relevant portion of the observation Ahmedabad Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court are quoted below:-
"6. Before commencing our analysis, it is necessary to note the scope of prayers made before the CAT and High Court, and before this Court. The prayer before the CAT is for regularisation with retrospective effect, protection of pay, and grant of seniority and service and pension benefits by counting the period of contractual service. Pursuant to the High Court's impugned order dated 23.03.2021, only the appellants' pay has been protected while their prayers for seniority, service and pension benefits by including the contractual period have been rejected. The submissions before this Court have been limited to the grant of pensionary benefits by including the contractual period, through reliance on the decision in Sheela Devi (supra). The issues relating to grant of retrospective regularisation, seniority and service benefits during the contractual period have not been argued before us. We are therefore confining ourselves to the issue of pension.
7. Rule 17 of the Pension Rules deals with counting of service on contract for the purpose of granting pension, which squarely covers the issue in the present case. It is extracted below for ready reference:
"17. Counting of service on contract -
(1) A person who is initially engaged by the Government on a contract for a specified period and is subsequently appointed to the same or another post in a substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment without interruption of duty, may opt either :-
(a) to retain the Government contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund with interest 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::16 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 thereon including any othercompensation for that service; or
(b) to agree to refund to the Government the monetary benefits referred to in Clause (a) or to forgo the same if they have not been paid to him and count in lieu thereof the service for which the aforesaid monetary benefits may have been payable.
(2) The option under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated to the Head of Office under intimation to the Accounts Officer within a period of three months from the date of issue of the order of permanent transfer to pensionable service, or if the Government servant is on leave on that day, within three months of his return from leave, whichever is later.
(3) If no communication is received by the Head of Ahmedabad Office within the period referred to in sub-rule (2), the Bench Government servant shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the monetary benefits payable or paid to him on account of service rendered on contract."
8. This rule fell for consideration and interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), where this Court held that although Rule 2(g) of the Pension Rules excludes contractual employees from their application, Rule 17 applies once such contractual employee is regularised on a later date. The effect is that upon regularisation, the Pension Rules become applicable and Rule 17 requires that past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account for calculating pension. In this light, and considering that Rule 17 requires the regularised employee to exercise an option to either retain the Government's contribution to Contributory Provident Fund, or to refund such amount or forgo the same if they have not been paid in lieu of counting the service period for which such benefits may have been payable, this Court in Sheela Devi (supra) issued the following directions:
"11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions are issued:-
(i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode and manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned (who had been regularized after spells of contractual employment) regardless of the dates on which they were engaged i.e. prior to the year 2003 or subsequently, within a time frame, of within eight weeks from today.
(ii) After receiving the options within the time indicated in the notice, the concerned employee(s) who exercise the relevant options should be notified about the amounts 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::17 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 they would have to remit in case any amount towards contribution is required, clearly.
(iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight weeks from the last date of receiving options.
(iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire process should be completed within four months and all orders fixing pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be issued."
9. In light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), the contractual service period rendered prior to the appellants' regularisation in 2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17. In line with the directions issued in Sheela Devi (supra) extracted hereinabove, we direct the respondent Union of India to take immediate steps and indicate the mode and manner for the appellants to exercise the option Ahmedabad provided under Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as to Bench notify the amounts that the appellants would have to remit in case they opt for grant of pension under the Rules.
10. With the above reasoning and directions, we partly allow the present appeals arising from SLP (C) Nos. 19539- 19540/2021 and set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 23.03.2021 in W.P. No. 4712/2016 (S-CAT) c/w W.P. No. 4714/2016 (S-CAT) to the extent indicated hereinabove."
(emphasis supplied) Therefore, it is the core submission of applicant herein that the ratio of the said judgment applied to the present case, the applicant's unbroken service from 1986 to retirement militates against a rigid exclusion of the initial period.
16. Further, in Ajendar Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. (supra), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that where service is continuous and followed by regularization, the pre- regularization period may be counted for pensionary purposes, particularly when the employee has actually discharged duties against a sanctioned post. The Hon'ble High Court recognized that equitable considerations and the reality of service rendered cannot be ignored. The relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-
2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::18 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 "The fact of appointment of the petitioner as ad hoc employee and his regularisation, has not been disputed in the counter affidavit rather the said fact has been admitted in paragraph nos. 4 and 9 of the counter affidavit.
In the case of Babu Lal Tewari v. State of U.P. and others, (2019) 3 ADJ 501, a Bench of this Court has considered the question of adding the period spent by the petitioner as ad hoc employee in qualifying service and held as under:
"9. Moreover, vide Sub-rule 8 of Rule 3 of Rules 1961, qualifying service includes temporary service followed by confirmation and continued without interruption. In this view of the matter, services rendered by petitioner on ad-hoc basis followed by Regularization would stand covered under "qualifying service" defined under Rule 3(8) of Rules 1961, for the purpose of pension. In taking this view we are fortified by a Division Bench decision in State of U.P. and Others vs. Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava, 2012 (8) ADJ 376.
10. Similar issue recently has been considered by this Court in Ahmedabad Dr. Indrapal Singh Sachan vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others, Bench (Writ -A o. 62179 of 2015) decided on 07.02.2018, wherein this Court has followed judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 65873 of 2014 and directed that adhoc service would be counted for payment of retiral benefit treating the same as "qualifying service". Judgment passed in Dr. Indra Pal Singh Sachan (supra) reads as under :-
"Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties and we have perused the same.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order dated 9th September, 2015, passed by the Neutral Citation No. - 2020:AHC:6944 Principal Secretary, AYUSH, State of U.P., whereby the representation of the petitioner, for payment of pensionary benefits, has been rejected. The petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic doctor on contract basis vide order dated 1.12.1988. The petitioner continued to function as such. A Writ Petition No. 4806 of 1990 (U.P. Anskalik Chikitsak Sangrah Samiti vs. State of U.P. and another), came to be filed by association of Ayurvedic doctors. It was decided vide judgment and order dated 11.9.1992, with a direction to consider the claim of their regularisation within six months and for the payment of full salary of a Medical Officer. In pursuance of the above judgment of this Court, an office order was issued on 28.2.1992, directing for treating the services of the contract basis Ayurvedic doctors on ad hoc basis. The petitioner was also included in the list attached with the aforesaid office order and his services also were treated on ad hoc basis.
Subsequently, by order dated 25th September, 2009, the services of all ad hoc doctors were regularized and, accordingly, the services of the petitioners were also regularized with effect from 16.3.2005. The petitioner, ultimately, retired on 30.9.2007. On his retirement, he raised a 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::19 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 claim for grant of pensionary benefits, which was not accepted. Therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 49467 of 2012 (Dr. Indrapal Singh Sachan vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of on 22.4.2015, observing that the issue arising in the petition stand answered by the decision of the Court, rendered in Writ Petition No.61974 of 2011 (Dr. Amrendra Narain Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and others), which has been followed in Writ Petition No. 65873 of 2014 (Dr. Mohd. Mahboob Husain Abbasi vs. State of U.P. and 4 others). Accordingly, the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow, was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner within a time- bound period, keeping into mind the parameters as has been settled in the aforesaid two decisions.
In pursuance of the above, the impugned order has been passed, rejecting the representation of the petitioner with regard to the claim of the pentionary benefits. The claim of the petitioner has been distinguished in it from that of Dr. Amerendra Narain Srivastava, on the ground that the petitioner was never confirmed, therefore, his services cannot be counted for the purposes of grant of pension. In the case of Ahmedabad Amrendra Narain Srivastava, the Division Bench has dealt Bench with the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1965, and the period of qualifying service mentioned therein vis a vis Regulation 368 of the Civil Services Regulations and came to the conclusion that the petitioner therein shall be entitled to pension from the date on which he joined the services by adding the services rendered by him in temporary capacity to his services rendered by him with the Government Department on substantive basis. In other words, on being absorbed in the Government Department in substantive capacity or being regularized, it was provided that the services earlier rendered by him may be in a temporary capacity has to be counted for the purposes of payment of pension.
The aforesaid decision has been followed in the case of Dr. Mohd. Mahboob Husain Abbasi.
In the instant case also, the services of the petitioner, treated to be on ad hoc basis vide order dated 28.2.1992, was ultimately regularized vide order dated 25.9.229 with effect from 16.3.2005. Thus, once the petitioner stood duly regularized/confirmed, the services, rendered by him prior to his regularization on ad hoc basis, would be included in his length of service for the purposes of grant of pension. In this way, for the purposes of pension, the petitioner has rendered service with effect from 28.2.1992 till 30.9.2007. The said period is more than the qualifying service period of 10 years necessary for the grant of pensionary benefits.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the distinction, made by the Principal Secretary in passing the impugned order, is not tenable and, accordingly, the same is hereby quashed, holding that services rendered by the petitioner with effect from 28.2.1992, shall be counted in his services rendered by him after his regularization for the purposes of grant of pension. The respondents are, as such, directed to work out the pension admissible to the petitioner as aforesaid and to start paying the same as well as the arrears. The arrears shall be paid with interest of 8 per cent within a period of three months.
2026.05.07
P ANUKUMA
16:05:37+05'30'
::20 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
The writ petition is allowed, accordingly."
11. Even otherwise, I find that Fundamental Rule 56, as operative in Uttar Pradesh made by provincial legislation, clearly provides that any person who retires under Fundamental Rule 56 would be entitled for retiring pension. Fundamental Rule 56 since it is a provincial enactment would prevail over Civil Service Regulations, which are pre- constitutional provision. This aspect was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Prasidh Narain Upadhyay (supra), and the Court held:
"12. The term "qualifying service" is defined in Section 1 Chapter 16 of Article 361 of the Civil Service Regulations which provides that the service of an officer does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions:
(A) The service must be under Government.
(B) The employment must be substantive and permanent.
Ahmedabad Bench (C) The service must be paid by Government.
13. In the present case, so far as the condition Nos. A and C are concerned, they are satisfied and the dispute is only with respect to condition No. B, i.e. lack of permanent character of service. However, in our view, the aforesaid provisions stand obliterated after the amendment of Fundamental Rule 56 by U.P. Act No. 24 of 1975 which allows retirement of a temporary employee also and provides in Clause (e) that a retiring pension is payable and other retiral benefits, if any, shall be available to every Government servant who retires or is required or allowed to retire under this Rule. Since the aforesaid amendment Rule 56 was Service Regulations, which are pre-constitutional would have to give way to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56. In other words, the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 shall prevail over the Civil Service Regulations, if they are inconsistent. Condition B (supra) of Article 361 of Civil Service Regulations are clearlyinconsistent with Fundamental Rule 56 and thus, is inoperative.
14. A similar controversy came up for consideration earlier before this court in the case of Dr. Hari Shanker Ashopa Vs State of U.P. and others, 1989 ACJ 337. After referring to the Fundamental Rule 56 and various provisions contained in Civil Service Regulations, this Court observed as under:
"Clause (e) of Rule 56 unequivocally recognizes, declares and guarantees retiring pension to every Government servant who retires on attaining the age of superannuation, or who is prematurely retired or who retires voluntarily. To be precise, every Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) who retires under Clause (a) of Clause (b), or who is required to retire, or who is allowed to retire under Clause (C) of Rule 56, becomes entitled for a retiring pension, of course, the first and third conditions stipulated in Article 361 of the Regulations are satisfied."
2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::21 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
12. This has been followed and further clarified in Babu Singh (supra) and the above decision fully support the case of petitioner with which I am in agreement.
13. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.01.2002 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) so far as it relates to petitioner is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to compute pensionary benefit payable to petitioner after taking into account his entire temporary service. The amount payable to petitioner shall be computed within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and the same shall be paid within next two months and also continue to pay current pensionary benefits as and when the same fell due."
Respectfully following the aforequoted judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Babu Lal Tewari (supra), this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the said judgment. The period from 4.10.1976 to 13.3.1980 spent by the petitioner as adhoc employee shall be included in computing the length of qualifying service for pension."
Ahmedabad Bench The aforesaid judgment strengthens the applicant's case to the extent that undisputedly his service was not casual or sporadic, but full-time, continuous, and later absorbed into regular service.
17. So far as reliance placed by the respondents on the decision of this Tribunal which attained finality by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.H. Desai Case (supra), is concerned, in the said case, it was held that casual/contractual service cannot be counted as qualifying service. However, the distinction is crucial as casual/contractual service is fundamentally different from ad hoc appointment against a post. Casual engagement lacks the character of regular government service, whereas ad hoc appointments are often made against sanctioned posts under administrative exigencies. Thus, the ratio of M.H. Desai (supra) as relied upon by the respondent, in our considered view, does not squarely apply unless the ad hoc service is shown to be akin to purely casual or stop-gap engagement without any structural linkage to regular service.
2026.05.07
P ANUKUMA
16:05:37+05'30'
::22 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023
18. Further, the judgment Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra (supra) relied upon by the respondent is concerned, the said judgment lays down that continuous service does not automatically confer a right to regularization. However, in the present case, as noted hereinabove, the applicant already stands regularized and thus, the issue is not about entitlement to regularization, but counting of pre- regularization service for pension. Therefore, this judgment has limited applicability and does not directly address the present controversy.
19. We also deem it appropriate to observe that effect of Rule 32 of Ahmedabad Bench the Rules ibid, i.e., Finality of Service Verification is a significant aspect in favour of the applicant as the Service Verification Certificate (Form 24) dated 07.05.2013 was issued under Rule 32 which certified qualifying service from 12.08.1986 onwards. Rule 32 provides that Verification of service, once completed, shall be treated as final, and cannot be reopened except due to subsequent change in rules or conditions. In the present case, no change in rules has been demonstrated by the respondents and the reopening at the stage of retirement appears to be based on a re-interpretation of the same rules, which is not contemplated under Rule 32 of the Rules ibid. Thus, the respondents' action of revising the qualifying service at the fag end of service appears contrary to the principle of finality embedded in Rule 32 of the Rules ibid.
20. The respondents have argued that the claim is barred by limitation since the regularization order dates back to 1992. However, this contention is not entirely tenable in the eyes of law because the cause of action crystallized only at the time of retirement, i.e., in the year 2021 when pension was actually determined excluding the disputed period. Prior to that, the 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::23 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 applicant had the benefit of a formal service verification recognizing the entire period. Thus, the grievance is not against the regularization order per se, but against the subsequent denial of pensionary benefit, which gives rise to a recurring and continuing cause.
It is reinterred that the determination of qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits to the retired central government employees is governed by the statutory scheme enumerated under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was applicable in the case of the applicant herein. Undisputedly, the applicant had rendered continuous service without break from 12.08.1986 till Ahmedabad Bench his retirement i.e. on 31.03.2021. It is not in dispute that after rendering ad hoc service for the period from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 his services were regularized, though prospectively from 01.11.1989 vide Office Order dated 08.06.1992. Further, by considering the said continuous services of 25 years rendered by the applicant i.e. from 12.08.1986 to 31.03.2012, he has been granted certificate of verification of service for pension in terms of Rule 32 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 on 07.05.2013. It is apt to mention that Rule 32 provides that Verification of service, once completed, shall be treated as final, and cannot be reopened except due to subsequent change in rules or conditions which is not the case herein. Thus, we find substantial force in the submission of applicant that the continuous service rendered by him for the period 12.08.1986 to 30.10.1989 (ad hoc), should have been included with his entire service as qualifying service period for grant of benefit of the pension.
21. In view of the above detailed analysis and keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash & Ors. (supra) as well as of the Hon'ble 2026.05.07 P ANUKUMA 16:05:37+05'30' ::24 :: O.A.No.120/40/2023 Allahabad High Court in the case of Ajendar Kumar Rai (supra), we are of the firm view that the decision of the respondents excluding the period of service rendered by the applicant on ad hoc basis from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 from his total service while determining the qualifying service of the applicant for the purpose of pensionary benefits is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus, we allow this OA in the following terms:-
(i) The respondents are directed to re-calculate the pensionary benefits of the applicant taking into account the said ad hoc period from 12.08.1986 to 31.10.1989 Ahmedabad Bench also in his qualifying service and thereafter make the payment of different of his pensionary benefits and issue a revised PPO accordingly.
(ii) We also direct the respondents to pay interest on such amount of different at the rate of GPF from the date it is due and till the date of its disbursement.
(iii) The above exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
22. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
23. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) ( Jayesh V.Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
r.rajeswari/Nk
2026.05.07
P ANUKUMA
16:05:37+05'30'