In a nuanced ruling addressing long-standing employment inequities, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that even Class III employees who obtain retrospective regularization of their service are entitled to full pensionary benefits, aligning their rights with those of Class IV employees under established precedents. The judgment emerged from a petition filed by several government employees whose temporary or contractual status had been regularized after many years, yet who were later denied full pension benefits on the ground that Class III services did not qualify for counting towards retirement benefits under the prevailing pension rules.
The petitioners argued that, since their services were retrospectively deemed equivalent to regular government employment—from the date of joining in temporary or ad hoc capacity—their entire tenure must be counted for pension purposes. They relied on multiple directives and decisions across state tribunals and administrative channels, which recognized that retrospective regularization converts all prior service into substantive regular service. Citing existing precedent favoring Class IV employees, who were granted full pension rights when their past ad hoc service was regularized, the petitioners asserted that the principle of equality demands identical treatment regardless of classification.
The High Court, in a reasoned opinion by Justice Sanjay Kundu, acknowledged that pension rules do not explicitly differentiate between classes of employees once their service has been regularized. The pivotal question, the Court found, is whether the employee’s service is recognized as regular within the pension framework; the actual classification as Class III or Class IV becomes immaterial once regularization is conferred retrospectively. The Court observed that to deny pension credit on the basis of employment type would run counter to the intent of pension laws, which aim to provide security for old age based on aggregate years of service.
In its judgment, the Court surveyed legal history, analyzing decisions that had already extended full pension benefits to Class IV employees whose ad hoc service was regularized years later. The so-called “workman cum pensioner” formula, and the principle that once regularization is granted, all previous service becomes substantive, were cited as binding precedents. The Court found no basis to exclude Class III personnel from enjoying identical outcomes, particularly when their employment conditions and regularization timelines closely resemble those of Class IV staff.
The Court addressed potential state concerns about financial implications, observing that fiscal constraints must give way to principles of equity and justice. It underscored that benefits cannot be denied due to departmental convenience or budgetary considerations once legal entitlement has been established. The Court characterized such denial as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal treatment of similarly situated individuals.
Having upheld the petitioners’ entitlement, the High Court set aside the impugned orders that had deprived them of pension accrual, and directed the state to recalculate pension accordingly. It mandated that service details be re-verified and pension contributions revised, treating the entire period—including pre-regularization years—as qualifying. The Court also instructed payment of arrears to cover past losses suffered due to the denial, along with interest.
In its concluding remarks, the Court emphasized that pension is a legal right—not a benevolent privilege—and must be administered transparently and fairly. The judgment sends a strong message to the Himachal Pradesh government and other state authorities that retrospective regularization must be matched by equivalent pension credit, whether for Class III or Class IV staff. By enforcing consistency across employee categories, the High Court has reaffirmed the principle that once equality is invoked under law, arbitrary distinctions must fall.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.