Cannot deprive of pension after 28 years of service:HC Gwalior bench rules retirement benefits apply even where initial appointment was irregular

In a landmark ruling, the Gwalior bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an employee cannot be denied pension and retirement benefits after rendering decades of service, even if the initial appointment was irregular and not illegal. The court clarified that where an employee has served continuously for a long period, and the appointment was ‘merely irregular, not unlawful,’ the service must be treated as regular, entitling the employee to full retirement benefits. State ordered to comply within three months The court observed that the state government had taken services from the employee for 28 years on a regular pay scale and had also permitted her retirement. In such circumstances, denying pension was termed unjust and arbitrary. Setting aside a government order dated December 14, 2016, the High Court directed the state to comply with its ruling within three months. Service to be treated as regular from 1987 The court ordered that the petitioner’s service be treated as regular from October 27, 1987. It further directed the authorities to: In case of non-compliance within three months, the state will be liable to pay 6 percent annual interest on the dues. ₹50,000 compensation for mental harassment Justice Anand Singh Baharawat, while delivering the order in Purnima Saxena vs State of Madhya Pradesh, also directed the government to pay ₹50,000 as compensation to the petitioner for mental harassment caused due to prolonged denial of pension. No mandatory accounting training for Class-II gazetted post The court noted that the department itself had clarified that accounting training is not mandatory for a Class-II gazetted post. It also observed that the Public Service Commission had never issued any advertisement for the post in question. Therefore, the court ruled that the employee cannot be faulted for non-fulfilment of conditions that were never formally prescribed or advertised. Background of the case The petitioner, Purnima Saxena, was appointed on October 27, 1987, under compassionate appointment to the post of Registrar at PG College, Shivpuri. She was later transferred to Government PG College, Guna. Despite retiring on August 30, 2014, she was denied a pension on the grounds that her service had not been regularised. Court’s key observation The High Court stressed that when the government itself continues an employee in service for decades and pays her on a regular scale, it cannot later deny pension by citing technical irregularities, especially when the fault does not lie with the employee. The ruling is expected to have wider implications for similarly placed employees across the state.