The Patna High Court has clarified an important question affecting thousands of government and public sector employees who serve for long periods on “ad-hoc” or temporary promotions. In this case, the Court examined whether a retired railway employee—who worked as a Senior Section Engineer (SSE) in the Construction Wing for over seventeen years on an ad-hoc basis and drew the higher pay throughout—was entitled to have his pension fixed on the basis of the last pay drawn in that higher post.
The dispute began when the pension of the aggrieved person (petitioner) was computed with reference to his substantive lower post in the “open line” cadre, ignoring his long-standing higher responsibilities and pay as SSE in the Construction Wing. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had earlier refused relief, reasoning that ad-hoc promotion in a temporary organization (Construction) could not form the basis for pension if the lien remained at a lower substantive post. The petitioner then approached the Patna High Court.
A Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh) set aside the CAT’s order on 01 December 2022. The Court’s approach was pragmatic and fairness-driven: if an employee is continued in a higher post for more than a decade, draws the higher scale, receives increments and performs the duties without any reversion or adverse remark, the “ad-hoc” label loses practical meaning. In such circumstances, the Court held, pension should be fixed with reference to the last pay drawn in the higher post, treating the person “as if” he were a regular holder of that post for service and monetary benefits during the relevant period.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The petitioner had been promoted as Senior Section Engineer on an ad-hoc basis with effect from 21.10.1997 and continued to serve on that post until retirement on 31.03.2015. He drew the SSE pay scale throughout. The authorities never reverted him, never recorded any deficiency in his work as SSE, and allowed him to function as SSE until superannuation. Despite this, his pension was calculated with reference to his lower substantive post in the open line cadre, not on the last pay drawn as SSE.
The CAT had denied relief, focusing on two points: (1) Construction Wing positions in the Railways are temporary and employees keep their substantive lien in the open line; and (2) the petitioner had declined to take a departmental test for promotion in the open line (from Technician Grade-III to Grade-II). In the CAT’s view, absent rules specifically allowing pension on the basis of ad-hoc higher pay in Construction Wing, the last-pay-drawn principle could not be invoked.
The High Court disagreed. It highlighted several key circumstances:
- The service book recorded the petitioner’s promotion as SSE on 21.10.1997 with pay fixed in the SSE scale, and he continued in that capacity until 31.03.2015.
- For nearly eighteen years, the department neither reverted him nor conducted timely reviews to regularize or otherwise adjust his status.
- If he was allegedly ineligible even to hold Technician Grade-II in the open line without a test, how was he allowed to be placed and continued as SSE—an even higher post—in the Construction Wing for so long?
- The authorities did not produce recruitment rules, executive orders, or seniority lists to show why the petitioner should not be treated as having effectively held the SSE post for service-related purposes.
From these facts, the Court reasoned that the “ad-hoc” label could not be used to deny pensionary fairness after decades of service in the higher role. The Court emphasized that revisiting promotions and eligibility from as far back as 1997 would be a “daunting exercise,” risk further litigation among many retired employees, and keep pensioners in uncertainty at a late stage in life. Therefore, it applied a practical solution: treat the petitioner as a regular holder of the SSE post for service and monetary benefits during 21.10.1997 to 31.03.2015, refix pay and pension accordingly, compute arrears, and pay them within three months—failing which interest at 8% per annum would apply.
In short, the Court placed substance over form. Where the administration itself allowed continuous higher-post service for more than a decade, paid the higher scale, and never reverted the employee, the mere absence of a formal regularization order could not defeat pension rights tied to the last pay actually drawn. The Bench also restored the basic fairness underlying pension law: pension is deferred pay and should reflect the reality of service rendered, not technical labels prolonged by departmental inaction.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
For the general public—especially retired employees of Railways and other government bodies—this decision is significant. It recognizes that long years of higher-post duty on an ad-hoc basis, with corresponding higher pay, cannot be brushed aside at retirement simply because the department failed to complete formal regularization. The judgment promotes administrative accountability and mitigates the hardship that pensioners face when technicalities are used to reduce their pension.
For government departments and public sector organizations, the judgment is a reminder to complete regularization processes in time, conduct periodic reviews, and maintain accurate service records. If employees are continued for years in higher posts and paid accordingly, departments may be bound to honor that reality while fixing pension. Ignoring prolonged higher duty can attract judicial correction and lead to arrears with interest, adding to fiscal exposure.
This ruling may also curb avoidable litigation. By endorsing a practical principle—that a decade-plus of uninterrupted higher-post service effectively neutralizes the “ad-hoc” tag for pension fixation—the Court provides guidance that can be followed administratively in similar cases.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with Reasoning
- Whether pension can be fixed on the basis of last pay drawn in a higher post held on an ad-hoc basis for a prolonged period (over a decade).
Decision: Yes, in the facts of this case. The Court directed refixation of pay and pension on the footing that the petitioner be treated “as if” a regular holder of the Senior Section Engineer post for the period 21.10.1997 to 31.03.2015.
Reasoning:- The petitioner continuously discharged duties as SSE and drew the SSE scale for about eighteen years, without reversion or adverse remarks.
- The department failed to conduct timely promotion tests, regularization, or reversion, and produced no rules or seniority lists justifying a contrary approach.
- The long duration rendered the “ad-hoc” label meaningless in practical terms; revisiting eligibility after decades would be unfair and unworkable.
- Whether the earlier decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal refusing pension on the higher-post basis was sustainable.
Decision: No. The High Court set aside the CAT’s order and allowed the original application in favor of the petitioner.
Reasoning:- The CAT focused on the lack of formal regularization and the petitioner’s refusal to take an open-line test, but it failed to consider the decisive facts: the uninterrupted higher-post service, higher pay, and the department’s inaction for nearly eighteen years.
- The CAT also overlooked that, in fairness and administrative law, substance should prevail over form when the department’s own conduct created a legitimate expectation around the higher post and scale.
- What consequential directions should be issued upon allowing the writ petition.
Decision: The Court ordered the respondents to extend all service and monetary benefits for the period 21.10.1997 to 31.03.2015 as if the petitioner regularly held the SSE post; to refix pay and pension accordingly; to calculate arrears; and to disburse the difference within three months of receipt of the order, failing which interest at 8% per annum would apply.
Case Title
Yogendra Prasad v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4737 of 2017
Citation(s)
2023 (1) PLJR 175
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Purnendu Singh
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
For the petitioner: Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Mr. Md. Nurul Hoda, Mr. Uma Kant Mishra
For the respondents (Railways/Union): Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, C.G.C.
Link to Judgment
MTUjNDczNyMyMDE3IzEjTg==-ucPrJUDrHow=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
