2026:JHHC:18952 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3520 of 2026 ….….. 1. Manik Chandra Mandal, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Ram Prasad Mandal, resident of Village-Barwatand, P.O.- Kataniya Ojhadih, P.S.-Tundi, District-Dhanbad. 2. Utpal Kumar Mukherjee, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Mihir Kumar Mukherjee, resident of Village-Pathuriya, P.O.-Pathuriya, P.S.-Jaridih, District-Bokaro. 3. Abdul Hamid Ansari, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Nanho Mian, resident of Village-Gunghasa, P.O.- Gunghasa, P.S.-Hariharpur (Gomoh), District-Dhanbad. 4.Shiv Narayan Gupta, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Munni Lal, resident of Village-Mandu Chatti, P.O.-Mandu, P.S.-Mandu, District-Ramgarh. 5.Motilal Tudu, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Budhu Tudu, resident of Village-Dandatand, P.O.-Dandatand, P.S.-Maniyadih, District-Dhanbad. ..… Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary/ Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Town and District-Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District-Pakur. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District-Pakur. 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, P.O., P.S. & District-Giridih. 5. The District Superintendent of Education, Giridih, P.O., P.S. & District-Giridih. ..... Respondent(s) ….….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Adv M/s. Shivani Bhardwaj, Neha Bhardwaj, Shubham Kumar, Siddharth Ranjan, K.S. Chhabra, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. S.C.-I C.A.V. ON: 15/06/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:29/06/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for a direction upon the respondents to count their past services, rendered by them as Para Teachers for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as all the petitioners retired 2026:JHHC:18952 2 from the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers. In nutshell, the prayer of the petitioners is that they are entitled for pensionary benefits including pension/family pension, gratuity, leave encashment, GIS and GPF etc. counting their contractual services rendered by them. Background: 3. All the petitioners were initially appointed as Para Teachers which was contractual in nature. While the petitioners were rendering their services as contractual employees, advertisements were issued by the respondents for appointment of Intermediate Trained Teachers. 50% posts thereof were reserved/earmarked for Para Teachers. The condition in the advertisements was that if Para Teachers are claiming reservation of 50%, they have to satisfy the authority that they have rendered uninterrupted service of two years at least as Para Teachers. All the petitioners, since eligible in all respects, applied for such appointment. The petitioners faced the rigorous selection process and thereafter they were appointed on the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers in the districts of Giridih and Pakur of the State of Jharkhand. The service excerpts of the petitioners, for the sake of brevity, are as follows:- Sl. No. Name of the Petitioners Date of joining as Para Teacher Date of relieving from Para Teacher Length of service as Para Teacher Date of joining as Interm ediate Traine d Teache r Date of retirement from the post of Intermediat e Trained Teachers Length of service as Intermedi ate Trained Teachers The School from which retired 1 Manik Chandra Mandal 16.08.200 5 11.01.20 16 10 years 4 months 26 days 12.01. 2016 31.07.202 5 9 years 6 months 19 days Primary School Pipratand Block-Pirtand Dist.-Giridih 2 Utpal Kumar Mukherjee 01.10.200 3 04.02.20 15 11 years 4 months 4 days 05.02. 2015 31.01.202 5 9 years 11 months 26 days U.M.S., Chino, Block- Dumri Dist.-Giridih 3 Abdul Hamid Ansari 10.10.200 7 11.01.20 16 8 years 3 months 2 days 12.01. 2016 31.12.202 5 9 years 11month s 20 days U.M.S., Pordag, Block- Dumri, Dist.- Giridih 4 Shiv Narayan Gupta 01.04.200 3 11.01.20 16 12 years 9 months 11 days 12.01. 2016 31.01.202 5 9 years 19 days U.M.S., Tuladih, Block-Birni, Dist.-Giridih 5 Motilal Tudu 29.06.200 5 01.02.20 16 10 years 7 months 3 days 02.02. 2016 30.09.202 5 9 years 7 months 29 days U.M.S., Chhotakutlo Block- Litipara, Dist.- Pakur 2026:JHHC:18952 3 4. The case of the petitioners is that since they rendered much more than two years uninterruptedly as contractual employees on the post of Para Teachers, the services rendered as Para Teachers, may be temporary/contractual, is required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Experience certificates while working as Para Teachers of the petitioners are on record. The petitioners have also placed on record the appointment letters in the shape of Annexure-2 Series. After the petitioners were duly relieved from their contractual appointment as Para Teachers, they were permitted to join on the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers. Such relieving orders by the concerned competent authority are placed on record as Annexure-3 Series. In this way, the petitioners continued on the contractual posts uninterruptedly from the date of their appointment and they continued as such till they were taken into regular establishment. After serving for more than 9 years, they retired from the post of Intermediate Trained Teachers. Submission of Petitioners: 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it is by now well settled that the temporary/contractual services rendered by a person followed by regular appointment is required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. He places heavy reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Utter Pradesh & Others, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516. It has been submited that the employee, the petitioner in that case, was working as a work-charged employee. His case was that the period rendered as work charged service be counted for the purpose of grant of pension by adding such period under the qualifying service. He has basically relied on paragraphs 33 and 34 read with para 36 of the judgment in the case of Prem Singh (supra). 6. Mr. Tandon has further relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No.27 of 2023, decided on 27.03.2023. He submits that while relying upon Prem Singh 2026:JHHC:18952 4 judgment (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that the period rendered as temporary service in the work-charged establishment has to be counted for the purpose of pension. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge while issuing a writ of mandamus to calculate such period and pay entire benefits with 6% simple interest. This order was challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by filing SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s) 37107 of 2023, but the same was dismissed on 14.05.2024. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Another Vs. Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 in order to submits that even in a case where the period of contractual employment was ousted from the purview of counting the period of qualifying service under the extent Rules, the Hon’ble Supreme Court gave harmonious construction to the relevant rules, being Rule 2 and 17 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and held that if the employee was working on contract basis and came to regular establishment later on, are entitled for counting such period of contractual service for the purpose of pension. Said judgement in the case of Sheela Devi (supra) was followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash & Others Vs. Union of India & Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973. Mr. Tandon submits that relying upon the judgment in the case of Sheela Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court recently reiterated the same view with a direction to the respondents in that case to count the services of contractual/temporary period for the purpose of pension. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance upon Rules 56 and 58 of Jharkhand Pension Rule apart from other provisions of the said Rule to contend that the temporary/contractual period is required to be counted for the purpose of pension as contractual employment was followed by regular appointment. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned Counsel submits 2026:JHHC:18952 5 that the writ petitioners were though initially appointed/engaged as contractual employee in the shape of Para Teachers but later on after facing the selection process, they came in the regular establishment in the same department, imparting education in the same manner as they were discharging as Para Teachers, are entitled for counting their past services of contractual employment for the purpose of pension. Submission of Respondents: 9. Mr. Ashok Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand, submits that the writ petition lacks merit and the same is fit to be dismissed. He submits that the contractual employment rendered by the petitioners could not be permitted to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits of the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners were working under a Scheme and thereafter they appeared in the selection process pursuant to Advertisements and since they have not completed 10 years of service, which is qualifying service for the purpose of pension, they are not entitled for pensionary benefits. 10. Mr. Yadav has relied upon judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parmeshwar Nanda Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, reported in (2020) 12 SCC 131. The submission of the learned counsel for the State is that in the case of Parmeshwar Nanda (supra), the petitioners were working under Adult Education and Non-Formal Education Project which was closed. After closure of the project, they remained out of service for a considerable period, but thereafter the Government decided to absorb them. There was interruption in service on account of abolition of posts. He contended that the Supreme Court held in that case that such period rendered in the Project which was closed could not be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Learned counsel places heavy reliance on this judgement to buttress his argument to the effect that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Counsel has further relied upon the judgment annexed as Annexure ‘A’ and ‘B’ to the counter affidavit filed by 2026:JHHC:18952 6 respondent. It has also been submitted that Jharkhand Education Project Council (JEPC) has not been impleaded as party respondent in this case. Analysis and Reasons: 11. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials on record. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that these petitioners were initially appointed as Para Teachers. The nature of such employment was contractual. They were appointed as Para Teachers in between 2003 and 2005. Later on, they faced the selection process pursuant to Advertisements issued by Giridih and Pakur Districts. After facing such selection process, these petitioners were appointed and joined as Intermediate Trained Teachers in the month of January/February, 2016. 12. The petitioners rendered their service for 08 to 12 years in the contractual establishment. All the petitioners thereafter retired sometime in the year 2025, which is reflected in the chart above. All the petitioners have rendered more than 09 years of services in permanent establishment but they lack some days/months to complete 10 years, which is the qualifying service for the purpose of pension. 13. It is also not in dispute that 50% posts of Intermediate Trained Teachers were earmarked/reserved for Para Teachers who have rendered at least two years of uninterrupted service as contractual teachers. Petitioners were found fit under such criteria which is evident from experience certificate. After the petitioners were relieved, they were permitted to join in the regular establishment. This itself shows that the petitioners were not only found suitable for employment in permanent establishment, but their service rendered as Para Teachers have also been considered as a criteria for such appointment. 14. Once a criteria was fixed that Para Teachers who have rendered at least two years of service are eligible for appointment and the same was followed by regular employment; the petitioners are very much entitled for counting of such period rendered as 2026:JHHC:18952 7 contractual employment for the purpose of pension. 15. The stand of the State is nothing but approbate and reprobate. Once the State has fixed criteria that you must have rendered two years regular service as Para Teachers for such appointment, the State is duty bound to obey the simple principle that the period rendered as Para Teachers are required to be counted at least for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The State, therefore, cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold at the same time. 16. Moreover, the case of the petitioners stands at better footing than those cases referred hereinabove. From the factual matrix it is evident that it is better than a case of normal regularisation. In fact, the petitioners were given a chance to prove their merit and to face the selection process. The only condition imposed was that they must have rendered at least two years continuous service as Para Teachers. All the petitioners proved their merit by facing selection process and after they were declared successful, they were taken into regular establishment. The fact, therefore, remains that the services of the petitioners were regularised but before such regularisation the petitioners had to face the selection process. 17. Ousting the petitioners from the purview of pensionary benefits would be too harsh, in the facts of this case. Grant of pension to government servant in lieu of service rendered by him is to tide over vagaries and vicissitudes associated with old age, and is often an important consideration for seeking government employment. It is well settled that grant of pension is not a bounty. A right accrued to the government servant cannot be taken away on their superannuation only because they lack some days or months to complete ten years of qualifying service. Pension scheme is floated by the State Government which form part of beneficial legislation and the same has to be interpreted widely. 18. It is necessary to underscore that the State Government is a model employer and ought to uphold principles of fairness and clarity. When the Supreme Court of India has already held that 2026:JHHC:18952 8 contractual service rendered has to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits, if a person retires as Government Servant, this Court is bound to follow such binding precedents. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioners are entitled for counting of their services rendered as contractual employee. 19. The objection of the learned Counsel for the State that JEPC is a necessary party in this case has no leg to stand. The petitioners have not sought any relief against the JEPC, nor JEPC is going to be adversely affected. The petitioners retired as Government Teachers. The JEPC is under the School Education and Literacy Department. Not only the Secretary of the department, but all Officers concerned have been arraigned as party respondents in the writ petition. The objection of the respondent-State, therefore, stands overruled. 20. The State has relied upon the judgement in the case of Parmeshwar Nanda (supra). This judgement is rendered in the facts of that case, inasmuch as, such persons were working in a Project, named Adult Education and Non-Formal Education Project which was closed. After several years of closure of this Project, they were appointed on different posts in the State of Jharkhand, that too, in different departments. The writ petitioners of that case challenged Clauses 11 and 12 of their appointment letters. 21. Further, Rule 103 of Jharkhand Pension Rule was placed to submit that the interruption in service of an employee entails forfeiture of his past service. The petitioners of that case were claiming seniority and pay protection also which they rendered under the Project, which was closed. The Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, held that since the appellants of that case were absorbed as fresh appointees without any protection and seniority, as a consequence thereof, they will not be entitled to count their past service rendered under a Project. That was a case where there was interruption in service under the project because of the closure. 22. The facts of the present case are that the petitioners rendered uninterrupted service as contractual employees, which was followed by regular employment after facing selection process. The merit of 2026:JHHC:18952 9 these petitioners was tested by the respondent-State and thereafter these petitioners were taken into regular establishment. This is a case where all the petitioners were rendering their contractual services in the same department i.e. School Education & Literacy Department, State of Jharkhand and they were taken in the same department in the regular establishment after facing the selection process. 23. Thus, the facts of the case of Parmeshwar Nanda and the present one are quite different. The judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-State therefore, is not applicable to the facts of this case. 24. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-State has also placed reliance on judgments annexed as Annexure-‘A’ & ‘B’ of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The judgment in the case of Mohammad Rasid Vs. State of Jharkhand, W.P (s) No.602 of 2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court relates to regularization. The petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court to regularize the service on the post of Accountant-cum-Computer Operators/Cook. They made out a case that they have rendered 10 years of service in Kasturba Gandhi Residential School at Sahibganj and hence their services be regularized. This Court considered such aspect of the matter and held that their services could not be regularized on the ground that they were working on contractual basis. 25. The other judgment relied upon by Mr. Yadav is Sachin Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (s) No.3369 of 2019. In this case the petitioners, claimed payment of regular pay scale along with dearness allowance as revised from time to time on the ground that they rendered same and similar service as Government employees. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India came to the conclusion that they are not entitled for regular pay scales for the period they were working as Para Teachers. These judgments are totally misplaced for the simple reason 2026:JHHC:18952 10 that the petitioners are not claiming regularization. In fact, the petitioners of the instant case have already been regularized after facing rigorous selection process and they were taken into regular establishment till the date of their reaching the age of 60 years. After rendering more than 09 years of services all the petitioners were allowed to superannuate. These petitioners are merely claiming counting of their past services; whereas these two judgments relate to regularization of their services. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioners has rightly relied upon Prem Singh (supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court has placed reliance upon Utter Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rule, 1961. Rule- 3(8) and 361 thereof are reproduced in paragraph 8 of the said judgment. Regulation 361 of Utter Pradesh Civil Services Regulation has also been reproduced in paragraph no.9 of the judgment. This Regulation 361 is exactly pari materia with Rule-58 of Jharkhand Pension Rule, as per which the service of an Officer does not qualify for pension unless it confirms the following three conditions:- First - The Service must be under Government. Second - The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third - The service must be paid by Government. 27. It is not in dispute that while the petitioners were permitted to retire from service, they were government servant and the employment was substantive and permanent. Relying upon such provision, the Hon’ble Apex Court held in the case of Prem Singh (supra) that the period rendered in work-charged establishment are required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Paragraphs-33, 34 and 36 are reproduced in extenso: - “33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularisation had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work- 2026:JHHC:18952 11 charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in the Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularization. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work- charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make Rule 3(8) valid and non-discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment. 36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work- charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court’s order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees, In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularised. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularised, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.” [emphasis supplied] 28. The aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh (supra) has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amrendra Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand in L.P.A. No.27 of 2023. The Division Bench of this Court while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge held that the period rendered as temporary or contractual is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are relevant:- “4. The question of law involved is not any more res-integra and it has been settled in various judgments by the Supreme Court including one in 2026:JHHC:18952 12 the case of Prem Singh versus State of Utter Pradesh and Others, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 516, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the imposition of rider that such service, i.e., service in the work- charged establishment, to be counted has to be rendered in-between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. The Supreme Court has further held that on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment, it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. The Supreme Court further held that it would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in the Note to Rule 3(8) of the 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularization. In the opinion of the Supreme Court impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefit Rules, 1961. The Supreme Court held that such classification is highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work- charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 5. In this case, the State of Jharkhand has not brought out any such classification. In fact, there is no rule or classification contrary to counting the period of service rendered in the work-charged establishment as a qualifying service for calculating the retirement benefits to an employee. We are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to retirement benefits, viz. General Provident Fund, Leave Encashment, Gratuity and Pension, as admissible on the basis of the date of initial appointment in the work-charged establishment, i.e. 01.12.1981. 6. This Letters Patent is, therefore, allowed. Order dated 21.12.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(s) No.5223 of 2022 is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed. Mandamus is issued to the respondents to recalculate the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order along with simple interest at the rate of 6% from the date of his retirement till the date of actual payment. Let this order be communicated. Appellant-petitioner will file requisites before the Registry within 7 (seven) days.” [emphasis supplied] 29. The Division Bench of this Court not only set aside the order of the Single Judge by issuing a writ of mandamus to count such service for the purpose of pension but also directed to pay simple interest @6% on the pensionary benefits. This judgment of the Division Bench of this court was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court, however, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was affirmed by dismissing the SLP (c) Diary No.37107 of 2023 on 14.05.2024. 30. There are two recent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 2026:JHHC:18952 13 of India which dealt with similar issue of contractual/temporary employment followed by regular employment. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Another Vs. Sheela Devi (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows in paragraphs no.9, 10 and 11:- “9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation, inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual employees are excluded from the pale of Pension Rules. However, what is significant is that the rule itself in its opening terms saves the application of other provisions of the pension rules ‘Save as otherwise provide in these rules’. If the opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be understood in this context, any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the State would render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where the employees working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. It is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account. 10. So far as the other arguments with respect to the voluntariness when the employees enters into contractual services is concerned, this Court is unpersuaded by the submission because those terms where applicable as long as the employees remained on contract. However, his or her status ceased upon regularization. 11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions are issued:- (i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode and manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned (who had been regularized after spells of contractual employment) regardless of the dates on which they were engaged i.e. prior to the year 2003 or subsequently, within a time frame, of within eight weeks from today. (ii) After receiving the option within the time indicated in the notice, the concerned employee (s) who exercise the relevant options should be notified about the amounts they would have to remit in case any amount towards contribution is required, clearly. (iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight weeks from the last date of receiving options. (iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire process should be completed within four months and all orders fixing pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be issued.” [emphasis supplied] 31. The judgment of Sheela Devi (supra) has been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash Vs. Union of India (supra). While referring to Rule-17 of the relevant Rule, it was held that employment rendered as contractual employees are required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Paragraphs-8 and 9 are profitable to quote:- “8. This rule fell for consideration and interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), where this Court held that although Rule 2(g) of the Pension Rules excludes contractual employees from their application, Rule 17 applies once such contractual employee is regularised on a later date. The effect is that upon regularisation, the Pension Rules become applicable and Rule 17 requires that past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account for calculating pension in this light, and considering that Rule 17 requires the regularised employee to exercise and option to either retain the Government’s contribution to Contributory Provident Fund, or to refund such amount or forgo the same if they have not been paid in lieu of counting the service period for which such benefits may have been payable, this Court in Sheela Devi (supra) issued the following directions:- 2026:JHHC:18952 14 11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions are issued:- (i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode and manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned (who had been regularized after spells of contractual employment) regardless of the dates on which they were engaged i.e. prior to the year 2003 or subsequently, within a time frame, of within eight weeks from today. (ii) After receiving the option within the time indicated in the notice, the concerned employee (s) who exercise the relevant options should be notified about the amounts they would have to remit in case any amount towards contribution is required, clearly. (iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight weeks from the last date of receiving options. (iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire process should be completed within four months and all orders fixing pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be issued.” 9. In the light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), the contractual service period rendered prior to the appellants’ regularisation in 2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17 in line with the directions issued in Sheela Devi (supra) extracted hereinabove, we direct the respondent Union of India to take immediate steps and indicate the mode and manner for the appellants to exercise the option provided under Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as to notify the amounts that the appellants would have to remit in case they opt for grant of pension under the Rules.” [emphasis supplied] 32. Coming to the facts of the case, this Court holds that undisputedly the petitioners were rendering their services as contractual employees on the post of Para Teachers. They were having much more than two years of uninterrupted service as contractual employees. This was followed by appointment of these petitioners after facing selection process in a regular establishment of the same department. Hence, considering the binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Prem Singh (supra); Sheela Devi (supra); and S.D. Jayaprakash (supra), this Court holds that the period rendered in contractual establishment of the petitioners are required to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Conclusion: 33. In the light of what has been held above, all the petitioners are entitled for pensionary benefits after counting their past services rendered in contractual/temporary establishment. This court issues a writ of mandamus upon the respondents to count the services of the writ petitioners with effect from 16.08.2005, 01.10.2003, 10.10.2007, 01.04.2003 and 29.06.2005 respectively for the purpose 2026:JHHC:18952 15 of pensionary benefits. The respondents are further directed to calculate all the post- retirement benefits of the petitioners and pay the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of their retirements till the date of actual payment. 34. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.As., if any, also stands disposed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Dated:29/06/2026 Amardeep/ A.F.R Uploaded on 01.07.2026