The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed a critical principle in public service law: ad hoc service rendered by government employees prior to regularization must be counted toward qualifying service for pension. This judgment resolves a recurring dispute affecting thousands of teachers and other contractual appointees, bringing clarity and consistency to pensionary entitlements under the CCS (Pension) Rules.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Shrikanti Singh, a retired Headmaster, was denied full pensionary benefits because her service from 17.10.1997 to 21.03.2016 - rendered as an ad hoc appointee - was excluded from the calculation of qualifying service. The respondent authorities relied on Government Order dated 16.09.2009, which purportedly barred inclusion of ad hoc service unless specifically regularized under prescribed conditions.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on an ad hoc basis on 13.10.1997.
- Her ad hoc services were formally approved on 05.09.2005.
- She was regularized w.e.f. 22.03.2016, following due process.
- She superannuated on 31.03.2025 while holding the post of Headmaster.
- The Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh, by order dated 28.02.2026, excluded her pre-regularization service from pension computation.
- A notice dated 16.03.2026 from the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, reiterated the denial of pension based on the same rationale.
- The petitioner’s entire service period from 17.10.1997 to 31.03.2025 amounts to 27 years and 5 months.
- She also claimed arrears of salary for the period 17.10.1997 to 04.09.2005, arrears in the Head Master pay scale (July 2020 to November 2022), arrears in promotional pay scale (October 2019 to March 2024), and group insurance dues.
Procedural History
- 28.02.2026: Order passed by Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh, excluding ad hoc service for pension.
- 16.03.2026: Notice issued by District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, confirming denial of pension.
- 2026: Writ Petition (No. 5433 of 2026) filed before the Allahabad High Court.
- 24.04.2026: Court heard arguments and decided the matter at the admission stage with consent of parties.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 28.02.2026 and the notice dated 16.03.2026.
- Inclusion of her entire service from 17.10.1997 to 31.03.2025 as qualifying service for pension.
- Monthly disbursement of pension with arrears from 01.04.2025.
- Payment of salary arrears for 17.10.1997 to 04.09.2005, Head Master pay scale arrears (July 2020 - November 2022), promotional pay scale arrears (October 2019 - March 2024), and group insurance amount.
- Interest at a rate to be determined by the Court on all arrears.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether ad hoc service rendered by a government employee prior to regularization qualifies as qualifying service for the purpose of calculating pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, in light of binding precedents of this Court.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare submitted that the issue had been conclusively settled by a coordinate bench of this Court in Nand Lal v. State of U.P. (Writ-A No. 12070 of 2020), which held that ad hoc service must be counted for pension if the employee was subsequently regularized. This view was affirmed in State of U.P. v. Surendra Singh (Special Appeal Defective No. 172 of 2023), and further reinforced by State of U.P. v. Satya Prakash Singh (Special Appeal (D) No. 158 of 2021). The petitioner’s case was identical in facts and law, and the State had not contested the applicability of these precedents. The Court was urged to apply the ratio in Nand Lal and direct inclusion of the entire service period.
For the Respondent
The Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute the petitioner’s submissions. He conceded that the issue was squarely covered by the aforementioned judgments and that the State’s position could not be sustained in light of the binding precedents. He did not oppose the prayer for quashing the impugned orders or for remittal.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the legal position on inclusion of ad hoc service in pension calculation had been authoritatively settled by multiple Division Bench judgments of this Court. The judgment in Nand Lal v. State of U.P. (Writ-A No. 12070 of 2020) had explicitly held that when an ad hoc appointee is subsequently regularized, the entire period of service, including the ad hoc tenure, must be counted for pensionary benefits, unless there is a clear statutory bar or a valid rule excluding such service.
"The principle of equity and fair play demands that an employee who has rendered continuous service, even if initially on ad hoc basis, should not be deprived of pensionary benefits merely because of the mode of initial appointment."
The Court noted that the Government Order dated 16.09.2009 could not override the settled legal position established by judicial precedents. The State’s reliance on administrative instructions was held to be legally unsustainable in the face of binding judicial pronouncements. The Court further emphasized that the judgment in Special Appeal Defective No. 172 of 2023 had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 15682 of 2025, thereby elevating its precedential value.
The Court also referenced paragraph 49 of the Nand Lal judgment, which provides the precise methodology for computing pension: the entire service from the date of initial ad hoc appointment to superannuation must be aggregated, and the pension calculated on the basis of the last held post with all increments earned.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 28.02.2026 and the notice dated 16.03.2026 are quashed. The Deputy Director of Education (Secondary), Azamgarh, is directed to pass a fresh order within eight weeks, computing the petitioner’s pension by including her entire service from 17.10.1997 to 31.03.2025 as qualifying service. The petitioner shall be entitled to pension arrears from 01.04.2025, calculated at the rate applicable to the post of Headmaster, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of superannuation until actual payment. The State shall also disburse the arrears of salary for the period 17.10.1997 to 04.09.2005, the arrears in the Head Master pay scale (July 2020 - November 2022), the arrears in the promotional pay scale (October 2019 - March 2024), and the group insurance amount, with interest at 6% per annum from the respective due dates until payment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Ad Hoc Service Is Not Disqualifying for Pension
- Practitioners representing government employees must now assert that any period of ad hoc service followed by regularization qualifies as continuous service under Rule 54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
- Administrative orders excluding ad hoc service are void if they conflict with judicial precedents.
- Pension authorities must recalculate benefits for all similarly situated employees who were regularized after ad hoc service.
Precedents Bind All Departments
- The judgments in Nand Lal and Surendra Singh are binding on all educational and administrative departments in Uttar Pradesh.
- Any denial of pension based on the 16.09.2009 GO is now legally untenable.
- Departments must proactively identify and rectify pension calculations for employees with ad hoc service prior to 2016.
Arrears and Interest Are Mandatory
- Arrears of salary and pension must be paid with interest at 6% per annum from the date of entitlement.
- Interest is not discretionary - it is a legal consequence of delayed payment of statutory benefits.
- Claims for group insurance and promotional pay arrears are now clearly actionable alongside pension claims.
