RANCHI, India, March 10 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Feb. 9:

1. Heard the parties.

2. The prayer of petitioners is to count their past services under the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were regularized only on 2023, however, they were working since November, 2008 but their past services have not been calculated for the purpose of considering their pensionary benefits.

4. The petitioners have worked for more than 14 year and thereafter, they were regularized. It is admitted that they had served the respondents from November, 2008.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Gujarat Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 2004 at Paragraph No. 1 has held as under:-

"1. It is unfortune that the State continued to take the services of the respondent as an ad-hoc for 30 years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he is not entitled to pension/pensionary benefit. The State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong. To take the services continuously for 30 years and thereafter to contend that an employee who has rendered 30 years continues service shall not be eligible for pension is nothing but unreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand."

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of H.P. Vs. Sheela Devi, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 at paragraph 9 has held as under:-

"9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation, inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual employees are excluded from the pale of Pension Rules. However, what is significant is that the rule itself in its opening terms saves the application of other provisions of the pension rules: "Save as otherwise provided in these rules". If the opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be understood in this context, any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the State would render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where the employees working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. It is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account."

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kvz0ZLePOh72xklxWFsShmroUxCHf5KQoCxQuiU%2FVr9Ia&caseno=WPC/769/2026&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010003932026&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.