The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, has affirmed that long-term service rendered on an irregular but not illegal ad-hoc basis must be counted for pensionary benefits, reinforcing the constitutional principle that pension is not a bounty but a deferred wage. This judgment clarifies the limits of Uma Devi jurisprudence and establishes a critical precedent for employees whose appointments suffered procedural flaws but were otherwise legitimate.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, K.S. Ravindra, was appointed as Cameraman Grade-II (Ad-hoc) in Doordarshan on 11.03.1993. The post was governed by recruitment rules requiring 100% direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) under the Gazette Notification dated 05.12.1987. Due to acute manpower shortages - only 284 of 509 sanctioned posts were filled in 1992 - Doordarshan resorted to ad-hoc appointments to meet operational exigencies. The applicant was selected through a departmental process involving public notice, eligibility screening, practical tests, and interviews, but his appointment was formally designated as ad-hoc due to non-compliance with UPSC procedures.
Key Facts
- The applicant was appointed on 11.03.1993 against a sanctioned vacancy.
- He was subjected to the same duties, pay scales, and increments as regular employees.
- His pay was revised in line with Central Pay Commission recommendations.
- He applied for the UPSC recruitment in 1995 but was not selected.
- He continued service without interruption until his regularization on 31.12.2013.
- He was granted regularization under a one-time policy, with no retrospective effect.
- He submitted representations in 2014 and 2015 seeking inclusion of pre-regularization service for pension.
- His claim was rejected by the Director General, Doordarshan, on 30.07.2021.
- He filed O.A. No. 441/2021 before CAT, which was dismissed on 01.06.2023.
- He filed the present Original Application on 20.01.2025 seeking inclusion of service from 11.03.1993 to 31.12.2013 for pensionary purposes.
Procedural History
- 11.03.1993: Ad-hoc appointment as Cameraman Grade-II.
- 1995: UPSC recruitment conducted; applicant failed selection.
- 31.12.2013: Regularization granted by Prasar Bharati.
- 2014-2015: Representations made for pension credit; rejected.
- 01.04.2021: CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, directed respondents to consider claims on par with similarly placed employees (in O.A. No. 1779/2016).
- 30.07.2021: Respondents issued speaking order granting parity in pay and benefits but denied retroactive service credit for pension.
- 01.06.2023: CAT dismissed O.A. No. 441/2021.
- 20.01.2025: Present Original Application filed.
- 13.04.2026: Final hearing held.
- 29.04.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
Applicant: Argued that his appointment was irregular but not illegal, as it followed public notice, eligibility checks, and selection procedures. He relied on Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel, and Yashwant Hari Katakkar to assert that long service (20 years) must be counted for pension. He emphasized that pension is a constitutional right under Article 21 and that the State cannot retain the benefits of two decades of service while denying its obligations.
Respondents: Contended that the appointment was void ab initio due to non-compliance with UPSC rules. They relied on Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi to argue that irregular appointments cannot be regularized retrospectively and that the undertaking signed by the applicant waived pension claims. They asserted that granting pension credit would violate Articles 14 and 16 by unfairly privileging one applicant over other aspirants.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Inclusion of service from 11.03.1993 to 31.12.2013 as qualifying service for pension.
- Recalculation of pension arrears based on the extended service period.
- Payment of all associated retiral benefits, including gratuity and medical benefits, with effect from the date of retirement.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether service rendered on an irregular but not illegal ad-hoc basis for over two decades, followed by regularization, can be counted for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite non-compliance with formal recruitment procedures.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The applicant relied on Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) to argue that service rendered in work-charged establishments for over ten years must be counted for pension, even if regularization was not granted. He cited State of Gujarat v. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel (2022) to show that the State cannot retain the benefits of 30 years of service and then deny pension. He invoked Yashwant Hari Katakkar (1996) to establish that long service (18.5 years) can be deemed permanent for pension purposes. He emphasized that Uma Devi does not bar pension recognition where service is continuous, functional, and not illegal. He argued that the undertaking signed in 2013 was void under Article 23 as it was imposed under economic compulsion.
For the Respondent
The respondents relied on Uma Devi to argue that irregular appointments cannot be validated retrospectively and that recognition of service for pension would undermine the constitutional mandate of fair recruitment under Articles 14 and 16. They contended that the applicant’s failure in the 1995 UPSC exam negated any claim to regular status. They asserted that the undertaking signed at the time of regularization barred pension claims and that the State cannot be estopped from enforcing recruitment rules.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal undertook a nuanced analysis of the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, drawing from Uma Devi and subsequent jurisprudence. It held that while Uma Devi prohibits the regularization of illegal appointments to protect the rights of other aspirants, it does not preclude recognition of past service for pension when the appointment is irregular but not illegal.
"The applicant's engagement, though not strictly compliant with the recruitment rules, was nevertheless rooted in a structured, transparent, and necessity-driven process, thereby falling within the category of irregular but not illegal appointment."
The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on the undertaking signed in 2013, noting that such covenants, when imposed by a dominant employer on economically vulnerable workers, lack normative legitimacy under Article 21 and Article 23. It observed:
"Long-term ad-hoc employment, coupled with denial of pension, raises concerns under Article 21 (dignity and livelihood) and Article 23 (prohibition of exploitative labour conditions)."
The Tribunal distinguished Uma Devi on the ground that the present claim did not seek entry into service, seniority, or promotion, but only recognition of completed service for social security. It held:
"Pension is not a tool of recruitment policy; it is a measure of social security and deferred compensation."
The Court further relied on Prem Singh and State of Gujarat to affirm that the State cannot extract two decades of labour and then disown its pensionary obligations. It emphasized that the applicant’s duties were identical to those of regular employees, his pay was revised in line with pay commissions, and his service was continuous and satisfactory.
The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the applicant’s failure in the 1995 UPSC exam invalidated his prior service, noting:
"Failure in a competitive examination cannot retrospectively negate prior selection through a departmental process, continued engagement by the employer, and absence of any adverse material regarding performance."
It concluded that the State’s conduct amounted to institutional condonation of the irregularity, and that denying pension would constitute unjust enrichment and violate constitutional morality.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the respondents to count the applicant’s service from 11.03.1993 to 31.12.2013 as qualifying service for pensionary and retiral benefits. All associated monetary benefits, including gratuity and medical benefits, are to be recalculated and paid with effect from the date of retirement. The order is effective immediately, and compliance is to be completed within 12 weeks from the date of this order. No costs are awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Pension Is Not a Bounty, But a Right
- Practitioners must argue that pension eligibility is determined by the nature and continuity of service, not the nomenclature of appointment.
- Denial of pension for irregular appointees with 10+ years of service is constitutionally suspect under Article 21.
- The State cannot invoke Uma Devi to deny pension when the appointment was not illegal and no third-party rights are affected.
Irregularity ≠ Illegality in Pension Claims
- Where recruitment followed public notice, eligibility checks, and selection procedures - even if bypassing UPSC - the appointment is irregular, not illegal.
- Such appointments, when regularized, create a factual continuity that must be recognized for pension purposes.
- The burden shifts to the State to prove illegality; mere procedural deviation is insufficient.
Undertakings Waiving Pension Are Unenforceable
- Undertakings signed under economic duress, especially by long-serving ad-hoc employees, are void as violative of Article 23 and Article 21.
- Courts will not uphold contractual waivers that deny social security for decades of service.
- Practitioners should challenge such undertakings as unconscionable and contrary to public policy.
Precedent for Other Categories
- This judgment applies equally to ad-hoc teachers, drivers, technicians, and other non-gazetted employees with long tenures.
- It strengthens claims in cases involving Prasar Bharati, Doordarshan, All India Radio, and other public broadcasters.
- It provides a roadmap for litigating pension claims where regularization occurred after 10+ years of service.
Actionable Takeaways for Practitioners
- File claims for pension credit where service exceeds 10 years, even if appointment was ad-hoc.
- Cite Prem Singh, State of Gujarat, and Yashwant Katakkar as binding precedents.
- Argue that Uma Devi governs entry into service, not recognition of past service for social security.
- Demand recalculation of pension arrears with interest from the date of retirement.
