Contract service counts for pension and increments when later regularised employees are similarly placed and parity is required.

Contract teachers appointed against sanctioned posts and later regularised were treated as entitled to count their earlier contractual service as qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for annual increments, applying the parity and continuity principles drawn from the earlier Joga Singh line of cases. The claim was not defeated by limitation, delay, laches or acquiescence in the facts, although arrears were confined to three years before filing. The earlier final decision remained binding for similarly situated employees, and hostile discrimination was avoided by extending the same service benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners, who were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers on contract basis against sanctioned posts and later regularised, were entitled to count the contractual service as qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for annual increments on the basis of the earlier decision in Joga Singh's case. (ii) Whether the claim was barred by limitation, delay, laches or acquiescence. (iii) Whether the earlier decision could be questioned in these writ petitions and, if not, whether the petitioners were entitled to the same benefit.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners, who were appointed as Junior Basic Teachers on contract basis against sanctioned posts and later regularised, were entitled to count the contractual service as qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for annual increments on the basis of the earlier decision in Joga Singh's case.

Analysis: The petitioners were appointed on contract basis in 1997 against regular sanctioned posts, continued break till regularisation, and thereafter merged into the common cadre of Junior Basic Teachers. The Court treated them as being in a better position than the Vidya Upasaks in Joga Singh's case because their appointments were earlier and their regularisation also preceded that of the Vidya Upasaks. The Court relied upon the principles applied in the earlier decision, including that qualifying service commences from initial temporary or contractual service followed by substantive appointment without interruption, and that contractual service can be counted where the rules permit. Reference was made to Rule 17 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to later pension cases recognising service rendered in non-regular capacity for pensionary purposes.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to count the contractual service towards qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for annual increments.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim was barred by limitation, delay, laches or acquiescence.

Analysis: The Court held that the cause of action effectively arose after the earlier judgment attained finality and was implemented, because the petitioners sought the same benefit extended to a similarly placed or junior class. It applied the principle that a claim for parity in service matters may survive delay where denial would be discriminatory, while limiting consequential monetary relief to a restricted period. The Court found that the petitioners were not required to first challenge their regularisation order and that the claim was not defeated by laches or acquiescence in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by limitation, delay, laches or acquiescence, though arrears were restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petitions.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier decision could be questioned in these writ petitions and, if not, whether the petitioners were entitled to the same benefit.

Analysis: The Court noted that the earlier judgment had attained finality after dismissal of the special leave petition and review petition. It held that the earlier ruling, though challenged indirectly by the State, remained binding for the purpose of extending similar treatment to the petitioners, who were senior in service position and similarly placed for the relevant purpose. The Court applied the equality principle to avoid hostile discrimination between similarly situated employees and treated the earlier ruling as applicable to the petitioners.

Conclusion: The earlier decision could not be dislodged in these writ petitions, and the petitioners were entitled to the same benefit.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed, the petitioners' contractual service was directed to be counted for pensionary qualifying service and annual increments, and the monetary consequences were confined to a limited prior period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where employees appointed on contract against sanctioned posts are later regularised without interruption and are similarly situated to a class already granted pensionary parity, their prior contractual service must be counted as qualifying service for pension and increments, subject to restriction of consequential arrears where delay is in issue.

---