Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms: Work-Charge and Ad Hoc Service Must Count Towards Pension After Regularisation

In a significant judgment benefiting retired government employees, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reiterated that work-charge and ad hoc service rendered before regularisation cannot be ignored while calculating pensionary benefits. The Court held that once an employee’s services are regularised, earlier qualifying service must ordinarily be counted for pension in accordance with the applicable service rules.

Under landmark rulings by the Supreme Court of India (such as Prem Singh v. State of U.P.) and various High Courts, past service rendered on a work-charged, ad-hoc, or temporary basis—if followed by regularisation—counts as qualifying service toward pensionary benefits, provided the employee is governed by the pre-2004 old pension scheme.

The decision reinforces the principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory service rules governing pension and qualifying service.

Key Legal Positions

Qualifying Service: The continuous work-charge or ad-hoc period prior to regularisation counts when calculating the total years of service needed for a pension. [1, 2]

Pension Scheme Applicability: This counting of past temporary or work-charged service applies strictly to employees under the old/traditional pension scheme framework predating the New Pension Scheme (NPS). [1]

Limitations: While counted for pension and retirement benefits, this non-regular period generally cannot be claimed for back-dated seniority, regular promotions, or time-bound promotional pay scales. [1, 2]

No Arbitrary Breaks: Nominal or artificial breaks in service imposed by the employer do not invalidate the continuity of work-charge or ad-hoc service for pension eligibility

Background

The case involved a retired employee who had initially joined a public sector power utility as a work-charge employee and was later appointed on an ad hoc basis before his services were ultimately regularised.

After retirement, pension was calculated by counting only the period of regular service, while excluding several years of work-charge and ad hoc service rendered prior to regularisation.

The retired employee challenged the rejection of his representation seeking inclusion of the earlier service for pensionary benefits.

The Core Legal Issue

The principal question before the High Court was:

Whether work-charge and ad hoc service rendered before regularisation should be counted as qualifying service for pension when such service is followed by regular appointment?

High Court’s Findings

The Court answered the issue in favour of the employee.

Relying upon the Full Bench judgment in Kesar Chand v. State of Punjab and subsequent decisions, the Court observed that once the services of an employee are regularised, there is no justification for excluding the earlier work-charge or ad hoc service from pensionary calculations.

The Court held that denying pensionary benefits for such service would amount to arbitrary discrimination and would be contrary to the principles governing qualifying service under the Punjab Civil Services Rules.

Statutory Rules Prevail Over Executive Instructions

The employer relied upon an administrative memorandum to deny the benefit on the ground that the employee allegedly did not possess the prescribed educational qualification at the time of his initial appointment.

The High Court rejected this contention.

The Court held that Rule 3.17-A of the Punjab Civil Services Rules governs qualifying service and overrides any executive instructions that are inconsistent with the statutory rules. Administrative circulars cannot curtail benefits that are otherwise available under the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

Also Read-Denial of Retirement Benefits by High Court

Delay Did Not Defeat the Claim

Although the employee approached the Court several years after retirement, the High Court observed that pension is a recurring cause of action.

However, considering the delay, the Court restricted the arrears to 38 months preceding the filing of the writ petition instead of granting arrears for the entire period since retirement.

Why This Judgment Matters

The decision is important for thousands of government and public sector employees whose careers began as work-charge, ad hoc, temporary, or similar non-regular appointments before regularisation.

It reiterates that pension is a beneficial social welfare measure and that qualifying service should be interpreted liberally in favour of retired employees, subject to the applicable statutory rules.

The judgment also reinforces the constitutional principle that executive instructions cannot override statutory service rules.

Key Takeaways

Work-charge and ad hoc service followed by regularisation is generally countable towards pension.
Statutory service rules prevail over conflicting administrative instructions.
Pensionary benefits should be interpreted in a beneficial manner.
Delay in approaching the Court may restrict arrears but does not necessarily defeat the substantive claim.
Government employers must compute pension in accordance with statutory rules rather than inconsistent executive circulars.

Conclusion

The Punjab & Haryana High Court’s ruling strengthens the rights of retired employees by ensuring that qualifying service is computed fairly and in accordance with statutory rules. By directing inclusion of pre-regularisation service for pension while limiting arrears due to delay, the Court balanced the employee’s legal entitlement with equitable considerations.

The judgment is another important reaffirmation that pension is not a bounty but a valuable statutory right earned through years of public service.

By Satish Mishra, Advocate (99888-17966)

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court, Judgment dated 24 July 2026 concerning counting of work-charge and ad hoc service towards pensionary benefits.

Work Charge Ad hoc Service Towards Pension