Supreme Court of India· 21 February 2025
Where a three Judge Bench has held that the entire period of work-charged service must be counted for pension, may a later two Judge Bench confine that ruling to counting the service only for qualifying service?
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. v. SUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA
2025 INSC 259 · SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2146 OF 2024
Coram: Sudhanshu Dhulia; Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Answer
In the Court's respectful opinion that interpretation does not appear to be correct, the three Judge Bench in Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh having been quite unambiguous in asserting that the entire period of service of work-charged employees has to be counted for pension.
Headnote
Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 — r.18(3) — r.18(6) — Job contract establishment — Work-charged establishment — Qualifying service — Pensionary benefits — Constitution of India — Art. 14 —
Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 — r.18(6) — Job contract service — Only so much as makes eligible —
Held: Where a job contract employee is brought over to a regular pensionable establishment, only so much of his job contract service as would render him eligible for pensionary benefits is added to his qualifying service. The entire period cannot be counted. (¶14, 15)
Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 — r.18(3) — Work-charged service — Prem Singh reading —
Held further: Work-charged service of five years or more without interruption, followed by appointment to a pensionable establishment, qualifies for pension in full. The two Judge Bench reading confining Prem Singh to qualifying service does not appear to be correct, the three Judge Bench being quite unambiguous. (¶12, 13)
Constitution of India — Art. 14 — Classification between the two establishments — Left open —
Held further: Whether the classification between work-charged establishment and job contract establishment is artificial or an unequal classification violative of Article 14 cannot be determined where the Rules were never challenged and the point was never even mentioned. That aspect is left open. (¶16, 18)
Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 — Belated appeals by the State — Costs —
Held further: Inexcusable delay does not bar examination on merits where a large number of employees and the State Exchequer are affected, but every belatedly filed case is set apart for costs of Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand to the employee concerned. Appeals allowed. (¶3, 20)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 12There are judgments of this Court which have directed that the entire service of a work-charged employee has to be counted for pensionary benefits, once such an employee is regularised in service. The reference here would primarily be to a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2019) 10 SCC 516 which has relied on two earlier decisions of this Court and has held that once work- charged employees are regularised in service, their entire period of service in a work-charged establishment has to be counted for pensionary benefits. But then, that was said by this Court in context of service rules and regulations relating to Punjab, Uttarakhand and finally, Uttar Pradesh [in Prem Singh (Supra)]. The Rules though did not provide for pensions to such employees. Although, in a recent two Judge Bench decision, this Court in Uday Pratap Thakur and Another vs. The State of Bihar and Others (2023) SCC OnLine SC 527, while denying the benefit of entire period of service (as work- charged employees) to these employees for calculation of pension, this Court had held that the ruling of the three Judge Bench is in an entirely different context and stated as under:
Paragraph 13In our respectful opinion, the above interpretation by the two Judge Bench of this Court regarding the three Judge Bench decision in Prem Singh (supra) does not appear to be correct as the three Judge Bench has been quite unambiguous in asserting that the entire period of service of the work-charged employees has to be counted for pension.
Acts & Sections
r.18(6) Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992r.18(3) Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992Art. 14 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. v. SUDHANSU SEKHAR JENA — 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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →
Also decided in this judgment
Under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, when a job contract employee is brought over to a post created under a regular pensionable establishment, is his entire job contract service counted for pension?Under the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, how does Rule 18(3) treat work-charged service differently from Rule 18(6)'s treatment of job contract service?Does a Tribunal ruling that rests on a total misinterpretation of a High Court judgment, directing that the entire period of job contract employment be counted for pension, govern later claims?Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, can a court determine whether the classification between work-charged establishment and job contract establishment is artificial where the Rules were never challenged and no party argued the point?Where the State has filed its appeals belatedly and the delay was never explained in any satisfactory manner, may the Court still examine the matter on merits, and with what consequence to the State?