#Pensionary Benefits

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that contractual service must be included in seniority calculations and pensionary benefits for government employees, striking down provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Recruitment and Conditions of Service Act, 2024. The judgment mandates reconsideration of employee claims, ensuring parity in service benefits regardless of employment terms.

The Allahabad High Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to decide pension claims of seasonal Collection Amins within three months of filing, applying Supreme Court rulings that recognize long-term informal service as qualifying for retiral benefits. This ruling extends constitutional protection under natural justice to thousands of temporary agricultural workers historically excluded from formal pension schemes.

The Karnataka High Court ruled that an employee promoted on the day of superannuation must be granted the pay scale of the promoted post for pension calculations, provided they assume charge. This interpretation of Rule 23 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules ensures constitutional rights to fair pensionary benefits, overriding the State's narrow reading of the rule.

The Supreme Court ruled that casual labourers conferred temporary status for over a decade under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, are entitled to pensionary benefits regardless of formal regularisation. This judgment reinforces the constitutional right to social security for long-serving temporary workers, impacting thousands of similarly placed employees in government departments.

CAT Jammu dismisses a plea seeking inclusion of 39-week pre-appointment training as qualifying service for pension, citing a 32-year delay and non-compliance with Rule 22 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The ruling reinforces that undue delay in raising service-related claims can bar pensionary benefits, impacting retired government employees.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a Labour Court's classification of an employee as permanent entitles them to pension under the old regime, regardless of NPS deductions or lack of sanctioned posts. This decision reinforces that judicial classification prevails over administrative pension schemes, ensuring pensionary benefits for workers classified as permanent.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that even statutorily entitled Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits can be denied if the employee fails to claim them within a reasonable timeframe. The judgment underscores that delay and laches override substantive rights, affecting retired employees seeking pensionary adjustments based on belated ACP claims.

CAT Bangalore holds that 20 years of irregular but not illegal ad-hoc service must be counted for pensionary benefits, affirming pension as a constitutional right under Article 21. The ruling mandates pay protection and MACP benefits for employees appointed without UPSC compliance but through due process.

Allahabad HC rules that ad-hoc service cannot be excluded from qualifying service for pension if the employee's right to pension had already crystallized before a retrospective amendment. The judgment protects vested pensionary benefits of employees regularized after prolonged ad-hoc service, ensuring consequential retiral dues including interest.

CAT Patna quashed the recovery of Rs. 1,62,473 from a retired Group-D employee’s DCRG, ruling that pre-retirement pay fixation errors cannot be rectified post-retirement without following DoPT O.M. dated 02.03.2016. The tribunal emphasized that recoveries from pensionary benefits violate natural justice and statutory protections for retired employees.

The J&K High Court ruled that employees transferred from a government transport undertaking to a statutory corporation under SRO 14 of 1996 retain only pensionary benefits, not other government service perks like in-situ promotions, unless the corporation expressly adopts them. This clarifies the limits of transitional benefits for public sector employees restructured under statutory frameworks, impacting hundreds of similar cases across India.

Government employees acquitted of criminal charges are entitled to 7% interest on withheld pensionary benefits, with interest starting two months after the later of their retirement or acquittal. This ruling enforces financial accountability for delayed payments even when service-related proceedings are pending, setting a clear timeline for entitlement and reinforcing the principle that acquittal restores full service rights.

Telangana High Court holds that issuance of token numbers for pensionary benefits constitutes a binding acknowledgment of liability, mandating payment within six weeks with 10% interest from the retirement date. The ruling reinforces accountability for administrative delays in disbursing retirement benefits, setting a precedent for similar cases.

Jharkhand High Court rules that failure to implement a Lok Adalat award under the Legal Services Authorities Act within the stipulated deadline amounts to a violation of constitutional rights. The court directed the state to comply within four weeks, with 6% interest from the award date, reinforcing that writ jurisdiction can directly enforce statutory settlements.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that pensionary benefits like Old Age Allowance and Travel Concession, once granted under statutory rules, cannot be withheld by executive instructions alone. The court emphasized that such benefits are protected under Article 300A and require explicit statutory backing for denial, impacting retired government officials facing provisional pension deductions.