LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 08 September 2026

Must pre-regularization service on contract, ad hoc or daily-wage basis be computed as qualifying service for pension where the breaks in service are only notional?

PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD v. SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS
2026 INSC 965 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6865 OF 2022
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Reg.3 Punjab School Education Bo…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Pre-regularization service on contract, ad hoc or daily-wage basis must be computed as qualifying service for pension where the breaks in service are only notional.

Yes. Service rendered on a contract, ad hoc or daily-wage basis before an employee's eventual regularization must be counted as qualifying service for pension, because pension is a deferred wage for past service rendered, not a bounty; breaks caused by administrative exigency or court orders are notional and must be treated as continuous service. (¶27, 30)

Headnote

Punjab School Education Board (Employees' Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991 — Reg.3, Reg.8(2) — Pension — Qualifying service — Regularization — Deferred wage — Res judicata — Pensionary consequences of regularization — Distinct cause of action — Held: Res judicata does not bar a claim for the pensionary consequences of regularization where an earlier round of litigation concerned only the claim for regularization itself; the cause of action and relief are distinct. (¶21) Regularization — Substance over form — Nomenclature of appointment letters — Held further: The substance of an employee's engagement prevails over the nomenclature used in appointment letters; consistent departmental record showing an intention to regularize outweighs the use of the word 'appointment'. (¶22, 23, 25) Pension — Deferred wage — Qualifying service — Notional breaks in service — Held further: Pension is a deferred wage for past service, not a bounty; pre-regularization service on contract, ad hoc or daily-wage basis must be computed as qualifying service where the intervening breaks in service are notional or administrative. Appeal dismissed. (¶27, 30, 34)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 27On the strength of these provisions, we may briefly re-examine the issue. To quote from the seminal decision in D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India[^3], pension is neither a bounty nor ex-gratia payment but a payment for the past service rendered. The Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara (supra) had also rightly observed that payment of pension is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice. As the abovementioned provisions, too, codify, pension is a deferred wage that must be assessed and paid on the basis of the service rendered by the employee. When an employee has rendered long and continuous service, and stands ultimately regularized, denial of pensionary benefits based on technicalities or artificialities is generally unjustified.
Paragraph 30Here, too, the Single Judge and Division Bench had rightly held that the services by respondent-employees rendered on contract/ad hoc/daily wage basis prior to regularization must be computed as qualifying service for the purpose of retiral and pension benefits. The breaks in service were either ‘notional’ or artificial/administrative breaks, or precipitated by Court orders. They must be ignored and the service should be treated as continuous.
Acts & Sections
Reg.3 Punjab School Education Board (Employees' Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991Reg.8(2) Punjab School Education Board (Employees' Pension, Provident Fund and Gratuity) Regulations, 1991s.21 Punjab School Education Board Act, 1969

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of PUNJAB SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD v. SATNAM SINGH AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does res judicata bar a claim for the pensionary consequences of regularization where the previous litigation concerned only regularization itself?Does the substance of an employee's engagement prevail over the nomenclature used in appointment letters where the record shows an intention to regularize?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections