Continuous pre-regularisation service counts for pension and increments where employees were appointed against regular vacancies.

Continuous service against regular vacancies, followed by later regularisation, was treated as qualifying service for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 because qualifying service runs from the first appointment and the initial appointment could not be ignored merely due to delayed regularisation. On the same factual basis, the pre-regularisation period was also counted for annual increments, as the employees had continuously discharged duties throughout that tenure and their service could not be excluded from service benefits. The petitions accordingly succeeded, and the pre-regularisation service was directed to count for pensionary and increment benefits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners' service from their initial appointment in 2000 till their regularisation in 2007 was liable to be counted as qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. (ii) Whether the same period was also liable to be counted for the purpose of annual increments.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners' service from their initial appointment in 2000 till their regularisation in 2007 was liable to be counted as qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Analysis: The petitioners were selected under the Vidya Upasak Yojna, appointed against regular vacancies in 2000, continuously served without interruption, completed the prescribed training, and were regularised only in 2007. The relevant pension rules provide that qualifying service commences from the date of first appointment, and the Court found that the petitioners' initial appointments could not be ignored merely because formal regularisation occurred later. The Court also held that the State's attempt to treat pensionary entitlement as arising only from the date of regularisation was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The petitioners' service from 2000 up to their regularisation was held to be qualifying service for pension, in their favour.

Issue (ii): Whether the same period was also liable to be counted for the purpose of annual increments.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioners had continuously discharged duties from their initial appointment and that the period of service before regularisation formed part of their actual employment tenure. In these circumstances, the service rendered during that period could not be rendered otiose for service benefits, and the same period was held relevant not only for pension but also for increment purposes.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to have the said period counted for annual increments, in their favour.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, and the petitioners' pre-regularisation service was directed to be treated as part of their service for pensionary and increment benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee is continuously appointed against regular vacancies and later regularised without interruption in service, the initial service cannot be excluded from qualifying service for pension and allied service benefits merely because formal regularisation occurred later.

---