news details |
|
|
| Date of regularization, not ad hoc entry, decisive for pension: HC | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 7: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that it is the date on which an employee is brought on the regular establishment – and not the start of ad hoc service – that determines whether they fall under the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme (NPS).
A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar laid down the principle while dismissing a petition filed by eight erstwhile ad hoc Orderlies of the High Court establishment seeking coverage under the Old Pension Scheme.
The petitioners – Adnan Wani, Mushtaq Ahmad Hajam, Javid Ahmad Mir, Showkat Ahmad Bhat, Jawahar Ahmad Lattoo, Tahir Sidiq Gujri, Fayaz Ahmad Mir and Yog Raj – were initially engaged on an ad hoc basis around 2007–2008. After completing seven years of continuous ad hoc service, they became eligible for regularisation under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010.
Following an earlier round of litigation, the High Court regularised their services vide Order No. 1444 dated 25.02.2020, with effect from the dates on which each of them completed seven years of ad hoc service, i.e. in 2014 and 2015. They were also adjusted against eight supernumerary posts created by Government Order No. 236-JK(LD) of 2019.
In the present petition, the employees challenged a communication dated 12.06.2024 issued by the Registrar General declining their request to be governed by the Old Pension Scheme by counting their ad hoc service as qualifying service and treating them as deemed appointees of the pre-2010 era.
They argued that since their engagement began prior to January 1, 2010, and regularisation was only a continuation of that service, they should not be forced into the NPS regime introduced in the erstwhile State through SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009 with effect from 01.01.2010.
The Division Bench rejected the plea as “utterly misconceived”, holding that SRO 400 draws a clear line by providing that all employees “appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010” are governed by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme and that the old pension rules “shall not be applicable” to such employees.
“The critical test is the date on which an employee is brought on the regular establishment,” the Bench observed, making it clear that ad hoc or temporary engagement prior to that date does not, by itself, confer the status of a pre-2010 appointee for pensionary purposes.
On the broader claim that ad hoc service should be counted as qualifying service, the court explained that such an exercise arises only for employees already falling under the Old Pension Scheme to remove a shortfall in qualifying service. Where an employee is never covered by the old pension regime at all, “reckoning of ad hoc service for that purpose is inconsequential and meaningless,” the Bench held.
Noting that even on the liberal reckoning granted by the High Court itself—treating their regularisation as effective from 2014–2015—the petitioners entered the regular establishment well after the NPS cut-off date, the Division Bench concluded that they are “squarely governed” by NPS.
Finding no infirmity in the Registrar General’s decision and terming the claim to old pension “grossly misconceived”, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
