11 January 2024 Contract Law >> Corporate Law   |   Employee Related >> Corporate Law   |   Education >> Miscellaneous  

Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi's dream of a secure retirement after decades of teaching Hindi in Kendriya Vidyalaya schools came crashing down due to a technicality. Though she served for over 19 years, a High Court ruling denied her pension benefits because she was over the age limit for regular appointment when she was first hired.

Tyagi's story highlights the challenges faced by educators who might be caught in the crosshairs of bureaucratic rules. In 1983, she was appointed as a Hindi teacher on an ad-hoc basis, meaning the position was temporary. However, the problem arose because she was already past the age of 30, the cut-off for regular appointments according to the recruitment rules.

Despite this initial hurdle, Tyagi continued teaching for Kendriya Vidyalaya for nearly two decades. The schools apparently valued her service, even though it remained classified as ad-hoc. However, when she sought pension benefits upon retirement, her request was denied due to the age limit issue.

Tyagi didn't give up easily. She persistently appealed to various authorities, including the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The tribunal, in a more sympathetic view, ruled in her favor. They directed the government to consider her entire ad-hoc service as qualifying service, making her eligible for a pension.

This ray of hope was short-lived. The government challenged the CAT's order in the High Court. The High Court, unfortunately for Tyagi, sided with the government. They cited the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which state that only substantive, temporary, or officiating service counts towards qualifying service for pension benefits. Since Tyagi's appointment never fell under any of these categories, her ad-hoc service couldn't be considered.

The High Court also based its decision on a recent Supreme Court judgement that clarified that casual or contractual service doesn't qualify for pension. Tyagi's ad-hoc appointment, while valuable to the schools, fell outside the scope of the pension rules.

This case raises questions about the fate of educators who provide years of service but face technical barriers due to age limits or appointment classifications. While the High Court's decision upholds the existing rules, it leaves Smt. Tyagi without the financial security she deserves after a long career.