Disposed¶44

Dr. Smt. Rekha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2026WPS/6035/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

pension; qualifying service; ad hoc service; regularisation; Rule 15A Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules 1976; Assistant Professor (Political Science); superannuation 30.03.2019; delay and laches; representation to Commissioner Directorate of Higher Education; 120 days; Rajani Bhushan Mishra WP No. 578 of 2006; Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia WP No. 10214 of 2021; Rakesh Mohan Pandey J.; WPS No. 6035 of 2021; decided 13.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 2 (Commissioner, Directorate of Higher Education); respondent No. 2 directed to decide the representation in the light of Rule 15-A of the Rules, 1976 and the law laid down in Rajani Bhushan Mishra and Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia, completing the exercise within 120 days. ¶44

Dr. Smt. Rekha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the period spent by the petitioner as an ad hoc employee (appointed 13.09.1982, regularised 04.03.1987) should be reckoned as qualifying service for calculation of pension. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 2; that authority shall decide the representation keeping in mind the law laid down in Rajani Bhushan Mishra and Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia and the provisions of Rule 15-A of the Rules, 1976.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

The respondent authority must complete the entire exercise of deciding the representation within a period of 120 days.

¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.), order dated 13.07.2026 in WPS No. 6035 of 2021: The petitioner, a retired Principal appointed ad hoc as Assistant Professor (Political Science) on 13.09.1982, regularised vide order dated 04.03.1987 (probation declared complete w.e.f. 04.03.1989) and superannuated on 30.03.2019, sought a mandamus to reckon her pre-regularisation ad hoc service as qualifying service for pension under Rule 15A of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976, placing reliance on Rajani Bhushan Mishra (WP No. 578 of 2006, Coordinate Bench) and Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia (WP No. 10214 of 2021, High Court of Madhya Pradesh). The State opposed, contending the claim was hit by delay and laches and that an ad hoc employee has no right to have that period counted. Without independently adjudicating the question, the Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner liberty to make a detailed representation before respondent No. 2, and directing that authority to decide it keeping in mind Rule 15-A and the law in the two cited cases, the entire exercise to be completed within 120 days.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.07.14 10:50:11 +0530

CGHC010278282021

2026:CGHC:29408

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPS No. 6035 of 2021

¶8

Dr. Smt. Rekha Pandey W/o Shri N.K. Pandey Aged About 59 Years Occupation- Retired Principal, Higher Education Department, R/o B- 35,36 Vip Estate Khamhardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Commissioner, Directorate Of Higher Education, Indravati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

3. Joint Director, Treasury, Accounts And Pension, Raipur Division, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Petitioner	: Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate holding the
	brief of Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, Advocate
For State	: Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. Government
	Advocate along with Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶17

13.07.2026

¶18

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶19

“10.1 That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

¶20

10.2 That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to calculate the period of ad-hoc service of the petitioner as qualifying service for

¶21

¶22

the purpose of calculation of pension accordingly.

¶23

10.3 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including costs of the petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

¶24

Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocate would contend that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) in Higher Education Department for period of 6 months against sanctioned and vacant post on 13.09.1982. She would contend that services of the petitioner were regularized vide order dated 04.03.1987 and period of probation came to an end with effect from 04.03.1989 vide order dated 30.04.1990. She would contend that the petitioner retired from services on account of superannuation on 30.03.2019. It is contended that according to Rule 15A of Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976, the respondents should reckon period spent as ad hoc employee as qualifying service period. She has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Rajani Bhushan Mishra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others passed in WP No. 578 of 2006 and judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia vs. The State of M.P. and others passed in WP No. 10214 of 2021.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the State would oppose. They would contend that the petitioner was an ad hoc employee and her services were regularized way back on 04.03.1987 and this petition has been filed in the year 2021 after retirement, and thus, claim of the petitioner is hit by principles of delay and laches. They would contend that the petitioner has no right to claim period spent as ad hoc employee as period of qualifying service for pension purposes. They would contend that this petition deserves

¶26

¶27

to be dismissed.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶29

Admittedly, the petitioner was an ad hoc employee appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Political Science) on 13.09.1982. Her services were regularized vide order dated 04.03.1987. She got retired from services on 30.03.2019. She has claimed a direction to the respondents to reckon the period spent as ad hoc employee as qualifying service period for pension purposes.

¶30

In the matter of Rajani Bhushan Mishra (supra), The Coordinate Bench while dealing with the issue in para 8 & 10 held as under :-

¶31

“8. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State is that the qualifying service wound be counted from the date of regularization in services, is not sustainable as it is contrary to the Rule 15-A of the Rules 1976. Rule 15-A of the Rules 1976 provides for counting of ad hoc service for the purpose of pension. Rule 15-A of the Rules 1976 reads as under:

¶32

" 15- ए न�यम ि तदर ्थ� स े� व�क ा ी �गण��तदर ्थ� स े� व�अर ा ्ह� क ी �र ी , - र ्ह �ग� यदद ि अ/ तदर ्थ� न�य ि � क�तन ्ति �यम ि मतपदक ि ी� नव ि ा रद ु ्ध र ्थ �तर ्थ �न�य ि � क�त ्ति , न ��स ि े� व�म ा ! व ्य व ा ध��न ा �यम ि मतक ि ी �गईर ्ह% अर ्थ व� ा

¶33

/ , उचचपदपर ् ी तदर ्थ� न�य ि � क�तस ्ति र ् ्थ �य� सर ् ्थ ��पन�अर ् ्थ व ा असर ् ्थ �य�र ्ह% सस ि े यतम ! ध�र ा र ि ी तन�म ि �पदस ् े� पद�न�म ् तर ि ्ह �� पर ी क ी " गईर ्थ �।

¶34

10. On bare reading of Rule 15-A of the Rules 1976, it is clear that the qualifying services would start from 5- 9-1983 till the petitioner took voluntary retirement.

¶35

¶36

Taking the entire period into consideration, the proposal of the Principal, Govt. Degreee College, Sarangarh, Dist. Raigh (Annexure P/6) is correct and the petitioner is entitied to grant of pension in terms of the Pension Rules. If the petitioner is entitied interest on the pensionary amount which became due, the same shall be payable to the petitioner in accordance with law immediately after application for voluntary retirement came into force.

¶37

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia (supra) in para 10 & 11 held as under :-

¶38

“10. Rule 15-A (unamended) provides twin conditions for counting period for the purpose of pensionary benefits, which are (1) That the appointment of the adhoc appointee has been done on the regular post, (2) Prior to regularization, the adhoc appointee continued his service uninterruptedly. Therefore, by applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ratan Lal (supra) and this Court in the case of Geeta Shrivastava (Supra), it is held that the breaks which were given during adhoc period of the petitioner were fictional. The petitioner has been regularized considering the period of adhoc, thus cannot be made basis denying counting of period of adhoc services for pensionary benefits.

¶39

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the breaks which have been given to the petitioner during his adhoc period were artificial and deserves to be counted and the period of adhoc should be treated to be continuous for the purpose of pension on the basis of law laid down by

¶40

¶41

this Court in the case of Geeta Shrivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), Ratan Lal (supra) and WA No.165/2014. The petition of the petitioner is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 26.3.2021 is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to extend the benefit of pension by counting the entire period of adhoc which the petitioner has served on adhoc basis prior to his regularization and said exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶42

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.”

¶43

Having considered the facts discussed-above, provisions of Rule 15-A and law rendered in the matters of Rajani Bhushan Mishra (supra) and Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia (supra), this petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to make a detailed representation before the respondent No. 2, and in turn, the said authority is directed to decide representation so made by the petitioner keeping in mind the law laid down in the above-referred cases and the provisions of Rule 15-A of Rules, 1976. The entire exercise shall be completed by the said authority within a period of 120 days.

¶44

With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of .

¶45

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶46

$iddhant

Dr. Smt. Rekha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Smt. Rekha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Pandey Vs Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Limited

M/s Ganpati Motors Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Khorbahra Ram Urvasha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanhaiya Lal Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Kedarnath Soni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh