Pre-Regularisation Service Counts for Pension; Employees Engaged Before 2004 Can Opt for Old Scheme: Supreme Court

The respondents were engaged by the Board as Clerks and Peons between 1993 and 1996 on contract, ad hoc, daily-wage or work-charge basis, and continued through several rounds of litigation (paras 2-11). In July 2004 the Board adopted, mutatis mutandis, the Punjab Government's regularisation policy of 23.01.2001 and issued them appointment letters from August 2004 (paras 12-14). When they claimed pension under the old scheme, the State Government refused on 09.12.2011 because the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme applied from 01.01.2004, and the Board made the new scheme mandatory (paras 16-17). The High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench allowed their claims (para 19).

The Court first rejected the Board's plea of res judicata: the earlier litigation concerned regularisation, while this dispute concerned its pensionary consequences (para 21). Substance prevailed over form: though the letters spoke of appointment, the policy, the committee's recommendation, the Board's decision and the public notice all showed regularisation, and the Board's own letter of 20.10.2011 to the Government confirmed it (paras 22-25). Relying on D.S. Nakara, it said pension is a deferred wage for past service, and denying it to long-serving regularised employees on technicalities is generally unjustified (para 27). Following Harbans Lal, it held that pre-regularisation service must be counted as qualifying service, and breaks that were notional, administrative or caused by court orders must be ignored (paras 29-30). The Board's autonomy did not help it, since it had voluntarily adopted the policy, and conditions such as a typewriting test and probation only adapted that policy (para 31). Similarly placed employees elsewhere had received the same relief (para 32).