Supreme Court

Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Smt. Magi H Desai

MANU/SC/0297/2023

24.03.2023

Service

Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment

The Director General, Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India and another have preferred the present appeal feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the services of the Respondent herein – original writ Petitioner rendered as contractual shall be liable to be counted as temporary service for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for pensionary/retiral benefits.

It is an admitted position that, for the period between 1985 till 31st March, 1995, the Respondent served as a casual/contractual employee and her services came to be regularised as per the Scheme w.e.f. 31st March, 1995. Under the Scheme of Regularisation, there is no mention that the casual services shall be counted towards service benefits/pensionary benefits. Even as per the clarification issued by the DOPT in the year 2009, it was clarified that such appointee is not entitled to claim any benefit out of the services rendered by him/her on contractual basis before he/she was appointed on regular basis on a government post.

Rule 13 of the Rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 provides for commencement of qualifying service. As per Rule 13, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. It further provides that such officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post.

Therefore, the services rendered on a substantive post or services rendered as officiating or temporary service shall be treated as qualifying service. Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be officiating or temporary service. Even the services rendered as temporary service can be considered as qualifying service provided that the officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. Service rendered as casual/contractual cannot be said to be service rendered on a substantive appointment.

Under the circumstances and on a fair reading and interpretation of Rule 13 of the 1972 Rules, the High Court has committed a very serious error in observing that, the services in temporary capacity will include the classes of temporary service such as casual or even contractual. The High Court has materially erred in observing that the contractual service would be qualified as service in a temporary capacity.

The Appellant – Doordarshan Prasar Bharti Corporation of India is an autonomous independent department/body. Neither the rule nor the regularisation scheme provides that services rendered as casual/contractual shall be treated as temporary service and/or the same shall be counted for the purposes of pensionary/service benefits. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the same is set aside. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the Original Application is restored. Present appeal is accordingly allowed.

Tags : Contractual employee Rules Applicability

Share :