The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that contractual service rendered prior to regularization may qualify for pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, provided the initial appointment adhered to constitutionally mandated recruitment procedures. This ruling resolves a recurring dispute in public employment law and sets binding parameters for benefit entitlements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Rajat Mahajan, seeks two principal reliefs: (i) quashing of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024; and (ii) a mandamus directing the State to count his contractual service from the date of initial engagement as qualifying service for pension and annual increments under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner was initially appointed on a contractual basis and later regularized, but his pre-regularization service was excluded from pension calculations.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was engaged on contract basis in the Department of Women and Child Development on an unspecified date prior to regularization.
- He was regularized effective from a date not specified in the judgment, but the period of contractual service preceded regularization without interruption.
- The State denied inclusion of his contractual service for pension and increment purposes, relying on the now-quashed Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging both the Act and the denial of pension benefits.
Procedural History
- 25.04.2026: Judgment delivered in CWP No. 3361 of 2025 (Devinder Kumar & others v. State of H.P.) quashing the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- 13.05.2026: Present petition (CWP No. 21285 of 2026) heard and disposed of by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: Argued that his contractual service should be counted as qualifying service for pension and increments under Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, particularly since his appointment was not in violation of any statutory recruitment norms. He contended that the impugned Act, which barred such inclusion, had already been declared unconstitutional.
For the Respondents: Did not contest the quashing of the Act but maintained that contractual service could not be counted unless recruitment strictly followed the procedure under Article 309 and Recruitment Rules. They argued that the petitioner had not established compliance with such procedures.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- A direction to count his contractual service as qualifying service for pension and annual increments under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
- Recognition of his service period for financial benefits including notional increments.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether contractual service rendered prior to regularization qualifies as qualifying service for pension and increments under Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and if so, under what conditions - particularly when the initial appointment was not made through formal competitive recruitment but was followed by uninterrupted regularization.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the judgment in Devinder Kumar & others v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 3361 of 2025), which had already declared the impugned Act unconstitutional. He argued that since the Act was struck down, any denial of pension benefits based on it was void. He further contended that his appointment, though contractual, was not in violation of any statutory recruitment norms and was followed by immediate regularization without break. He invoked the principle that where an employee is appointed on contract and later regularized without interruption, the contract period must be counted for pensionary benefits under settled judicial precedents.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose the quashing of the Act but resisted the claim for inclusion of contractual service, asserting that the petitioner had not demonstrated that his initial appointment followed the procedure prescribed under Article 309 of the Constitution or any applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The State maintained that mere regularization without competitive recruitment does not automatically entitle an employee to count prior contractual service for pension or increments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the primary challenge to the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, had already been adjudicated in Devinder Kumar & others v. State of H.P., wherein the Act was declared unconstitutional and set aside. The Court held that the findings in that judgment applied mutatis mutandis to the present case, rendering the petitioner’s first prayer redundant.
Regarding the second prayer - counting contractual service for pension and increments - the Court declined to decide the issue on merits at this stage, noting that the petitioner had not submitted any evidence or documentation establishing whether his initial appointment followed the procedure prescribed under Article 309 or applicable Recruitment Rules. However, the Court laid down clear legal principles to guide the competent authority in deciding the petitioner’s representation.
"Where there is no specific mandate of Court, such category of employees, appointed on contract in terms of Policy for appointment on contract, but without following the procedure prescribed in Recruitment and Promotion Rules or akin to such provided for regular appointments, followed by regular appointment without interruption, regularization, shall be entitled for counting of contract period of service as qualified service for pensionary/retiral benefits... but not for arrears on account of increment during contract period of service."
The Court emphasized that contractual service may be counted for pension and notional increments if:
- The initial appointment was made in accordance with Recruitment and Promotion Rules framed under Article 309, including open competition and prescribed eligibility criteria;
- There was uninterrupted regularization without break;
- The appointment followed a procedure similar to that for regular appointments.
The Court further clarified that seniority claims must be decided on a case-by-case basis, considering third-party rights and opportunity of hearing. It also held that pensionary benefits may be restricted to three years prior to the claim unless a court has mandated otherwise.
The Verdict
The petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The challenge to the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, stands resolved by the judgment in Devinder Kumar & others v. State of H.P. (CWP No. 3361 of 2025).
- The petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh representation before the Director of Women and Child Development on or before 30.05.2026.
- The Director is directed to decide the representation by 30.06.2026, after providing an opportunity of hearing, applying the legal principles laid down.
- The decision must be communicated to the petitioner immediately.
- The petitioner retains the right to approach the Court afresh if the representation is not decided or is adversely decided.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Contractual Service Can Be Counted - But Only If Recruitment Was Proper
- Practitioners must now establish whether the initial contractual appointment followed the procedure under Article 309 or applicable Recruitment Rules.
- Mere regularization without competitive or transparent recruitment does not automatically entitle an employee to count prior service for pension.
- Evidence of public advertisement, eligibility criteria, selection process, and batch-wise appointment must be produced to claim entitlement.
Pension Benefits Are Not Automatic - But Can Be Claimed Prospectively
- Claims for arrears of increments during contractual service are barred; only notional inclusion for pension calculation is permitted.
- Pensionary benefits may be restricted to three years prior to the date of claim unless a court has ordered otherwise.
- Where a court has already mandated benefits, the State cannot unilaterally deny them.
Seniority Claims Require Balancing Third-Party Rights
- Seniority claims must be decided after hearing all affected parties.
- Retrospective seniority may be granted only if no third-party rights have crystallized.
- Timing of the claim and the nature of the appointment are critical factors.
