Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules in Favor of Retired Professor on Pension Benefits

Court Recognizes Ad-hoc Service with Artificial Breaks as Continuous for Pension Calculation

In a landmark decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled in favor of Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia, a retired professor, granting him full pensionary benefits by recognizing his ad-hoc service as continuous despite artificial breaks. This judgment was delivered by Justice Deepak Khot in the case titled "Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia v. State of M.P." on November 26, 2025.

Dr. Bukharia, who served as an ad-hoc lecturer from 1977 until his regularization in 1987, had been denied full pension benefits due to breaks in his service, which the court found to be artificial. These breaks were implemented by the state but were deemed fictional and unjustified by the court. The court referenced significant precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgment in "Ratan Lal v. State of Haryana" and earlier decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which criticized the practice of using fictional breaks to deny continuous service benefits.

The court emphasized the need for pensionary benefits to reflect the entire period of service, including the ad-hoc tenure. It highlighted that the unamended Rule 15-A of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, applicable at the time of Dr. Bukharia's retirement in 2009, should be used to calculate his pension. The rule stipulates that ad-hoc service should be considered continuous if the employee is regularized without genuine interruptions.

The respondents' argument, which relied on the 2020 amendment to the pension rules and recognized only a part of the ad-hoc service, was rejected. The court held that the 2020 amendment could not be applied retrospectively to disadvantage Dr. Bukharia. Consequently, the court quashed the earlier order denying full pension benefits and directed the state to recalculate his pension, including the entire ad-hoc service, within three months.

This judgment is expected to impact numerous similar cases where employees have faced artificial interruptions in their service records. The decision reinforces the principle of fairness in employment and pension benefits, ensuring that artificial breaks do not undermine an employee's rightful entitlements.

Bottom Line:

Pensionary benefits - Period of ad-hoc service prior to regularization to be counted as continuous for the purpose of pensionary benefits where artificial breaks were given during the ad-hoc tenure.

Statutory provision(s): Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 Rule 15-A, Ratan Lal v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 43, Geeta Shrivastava v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1988 MPLJ 192.

Dr. Arun Prakash Bukharia v. State of M.P., (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2820794