#Pension Eligibility

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a retired government employee dismissed for a non-moral turpitude act - such as being wrongly presumed to wear a protest badge - remains eligible for compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS Pension Rules. This sets a vital precedent for thousands of dismissed service personnel whose dismissals lacked dishonesty or criminal intent, ensuring pension equity based on conduct, not presumption.

CAT Ernakulam rules that employees provisionally appointed and later invalidated must be restored to their original GDS position with all benefits, including pension and service continuity, up to the age of 65. The judgment reinforces that service rendered under provisional appointments cannot be retrospectively nullified, ensuring statutory protection for retired employees.

HP High Court rules that contractual service may be counted as qualifying service for pension under CCS Pension Rules if recruitment adhered to constitutional procedures under Article 309. However, arrears of increments are barred, and the petitioner must file a fresh representation by 30.05.2026 to seek relief.

HP High Court rules that continuous contractual service from 09.11.2006 qualifies for pension under Rule 17 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, even without competitive recruitment, if followed by regularization. The judgment strikes down the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, ensuring pension eligibility for affected employees.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reaffirmed that service rendered as a daily wager cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension under the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The ruling impacts daily wagers seeking pension benefits, reinforcing the statutory exclusion of such service periods.

Bombay High Court rules that recovery of excess salary paid due to administrative error violates Article 14 and principles of natural justice if the employee is not at fault. The judgment protects retired government employees from financial hardship caused by state errors, setting a precedent for equitable treatment in public employment disputes.

Orissa High Court rules that contractual service from 1996 must be counted for pension eligibility under OCS Pension Rules, 1992, where the sanctioned post remained vacant and the State failed to recruit despite tribunal directives. The judgment entitles the employee to retrospective absorption and pension benefits, reinforcing the State's duty as a model employer.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that pensioners retiring before 1 September 2014 are ineligible for EPFO’s enhanced pension under the Sunil Kumar B. precedent, but must be refunded voluntary deposits made in reliance on earlier EPFO communications. The judgment underscores equitable estoppel, mandating restitution for pensioners who acted on official representations.

The Sikkim High Court ruled that suspension following a criminal conviction involving moral turpitude cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension, even if subsistence allowance was paid beyond superannuation. This sets a strict precedent for public servants in Sikkim: disciplinary suspension tied to moral turpitude forfeits pension accrual, regardless of length of service or continued financial support.

Madhya Pradesh High Court affirms that Medical Officers under the MP Public Health Service Rules are entitled to serve until 65 years as per the 2007 Amendment, directing authorities to process retiral dues within 60 days. The ruling clarifies the category of appointment and ensures consequential benefits for officers who continued service beyond the previous retirement age.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that daily wage service can be counted as pensionable service under the Pension Rules, 1979, but only if the initial appointment strictly adhered to the Recruitment Rules of 1977. This clarifies a critical threshold for thousands of informal workers seeking pension benefits, making procedural compliance - not just length of service - the decisive factor.

Madras High Court rules that daily wage employees of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation are entitled to family pension under the TNSTCE Pension Scheme 1998, counting their service from the date of appointment. The Court directed payment of pensionary benefits within eight weeks, reinforcing that arbitrary exclusions violate judicial discipline and service law principles.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that ad hoc service prior to regularization must be included when calculating qualifying service for pension, reinforcing the precedent set in Nand Lal. This decision directly impacts thousands of government employees whose prior contractual or temporary service was previously excluded, ensuring fair pension benefits based on total tenure.

Punjab & Haryana HC rules that employees with contract service before 01.01.2004 qualify for the Old Pension Scheme, even if regularized later. The ruling bars administrative attempts to apply the New Contributory Pension Scheme based on the regularization date, ensuring pension benefits align with the original appointment terms.

Tripura High Court rules that a divorced daughter is not entitled to family pension under the Revised Pension Rules 2017 if the divorce occurred after the pensioner's death. The eligibility hinges on the marital status existing at the time of the pensioner's demise, reinforcing strict statutory interpretation for pension benefits.