< Back

Case Analysis Geeta Devi & Ors vs Export Inspection Council & Ors 2026 DHC 1459-DB

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, allows an intra-court appeal (LPA) filed by employees (or their legal heirs) of the Export Inspection Council against a Single Judge's order that denied them the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS). The employees had initially been engaged on a casual/daily-wage basis, later given contractual status, and finally appointed to substantive posts between 2007 and 2009. The respondent-Council argued these were fresh appointments governed by the New Pension Scheme (NPS). The Division Bench, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Sheela Devi, held that Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, applies when a person initially engaged on a casual/contractual basis is subsequently appointed to a substantive post without interruption of duty. The court set aside the Single Judge's order and directed the Council to give the employees the option under Rule 17 to count their previous service for pension benefits under the OPS.

1. Heading for the Judgment

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

LPA 785/2023

GEETA DEVI & ORS. ....Appellants
versus
EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL & ORS. ....Respondents

Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Date of Decision: 19th FEBRUARY, 2026

2. Legal Framework

This judgment operates within the following legal framework:

The Constitution of India:
Article 226: The original jurisdiction under which the writ petition was filed before the Single Judge.
The Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963:
The Act under which the Export Inspection Council was created as a statutory body.
Section 17: Empowers the Council to make rules, including those regulating the conditions of service of its employees.
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (CCS Pension Rules):
Rule 2 (Application): Defines the scope of the rules. Sub-rule (g) states that the rules shall not apply to "persons employed on contract except when the contract provides otherwise."
Rule 17 (Counting of service on contract): A crucial provision. It states that if a person is initially engaged on a contract for a specified period and is subsequently appointed to the same or another post in a substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment without interruption of duty, they may opt to either retain the government contribution in the CPF or refund it and have the contract service counted for pension.
Export Inspection Council, Pension and General Provident Fund Rules, 1981 (Council's Rules):
Rule 3: Extends the benefit of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as amended from time to time, to all whole-time and regular employees of the Council.
Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 (DoPT Scheme):
A scheme for granting temporary status and subsequent regularisation to casual labourers who had completed a certain period of service.
New Pension Scheme (NPS): Introduced by the Central Government w.e.f. 01.01.2004, replacing the old defined-benefit pension system.

Related Precedents Cited and Relied Upon:

State of H.P. v. Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272: (Supreme Court) - The cornerstone of the judgment. The Supreme Court interpreted Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, holding that even if a person was initially employed on a contract, Rule 2(g) does not bar the application of Rule 17. If the contract service is followed by substantive appointment without interruption, the employee is entitled to the option under Rule 17 to count the contract service for pension.
Secretary State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1: (Supreme Court) - A landmark judgment on regularisation of casual/temporary employees. It held that there is no inherent right to regularisation. The Single Judge had relied on this, but the Division Bench distinguished it, holding the case was about substantive appointment, not regularisation.
Vasudev vs. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1004/2018: (Delhi High Court) - Cited by the appellants. The Division Bench distinguished this case, noting it was based on the applicability of the 1993 DoPT Scheme, which was not shown to be applicable to the Council.

3. Basic Relevant Facts of the Case

Nature of Employment: The appellants were initially engaged as casual/daily wage employees with the Export Inspection Council between 1985 and 1992. They were later granted contractual status in the early 1990s.
Substantive Appointments: Between 2007 and 2009, the appellants were issued appointment orders to substantive posts. The Council contended these were "fresh appointments" by direct recruitment, not regularisation of previous service.
The Pension Dispute: The appointment letters stipulated that the employees would be governed by the New Pension Scheme (NPS), introduced in 2004. The appellants claimed they were entitled to the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) under the CCS (Pension) Rules, as their casual/contractual service should be counted.
The Single Judge's Order (21.09.2023): The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, primarily relying on Umadevi to hold that the appellants had no right to be regularised, and their regularisation could not be dated back. The court treated their appointments as fresh from the dates in 2007-2009, making them subject to NPS.
The Appeal: The appellants filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (intra-court appeal) against the Single Judge's order.

4. Issues in the Judgment

The Division Bench framed and addressed the following core issues:

Applicability of Rule 17: Whether, in the facts of the case, Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which allows for the counting of service rendered on a contract towards pension, is applicable to the appellants.
Effect of "Fresh Appointment": Whether the fact that the appellants were issued "fresh appointment orders" in 2007-2009, rather than being "regularised," disentitles them from claiming the benefit of their previous casual/contractual service under Rule 17.
Correctness of Single Judge's Approach: Whether the learned Single Judge erred in relying on Umadevi and failing to consider the applicability of Rule 17 in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Sheela Devi.

5. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning of the Court)

The court's reasoning was systematic and anchored in statutory interpretation and binding precedent.

Preliminary Finding on Applicability of CCS Rules: The court first established that through the Council's own Rules of 1981 (specifically Rule 3), the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, were made applicable to all whole-time and regular employees of the Council. This foundational point was not in dispute.
Interpretation of Rule 17 (Applying Sheela Devi): The court then examined Rule 17. Relying heavily on Sheela Devi, it held that Rule 2(g) (which excludes contract employees) does not bar the operation of Rule 17. Rule 17 is a special provision that specifically deals with the situation where contract service is followed by substantive appointment. The key requirements are:
Initial engagement on a casual/contractual basis.
Subsequent appointment to a post in a substantive capacity.
Such appointment should be without interruption of duty.
"Fresh Appointment" vs. "Substantive Capacity": The court rejected the Council's argument that because the 2007-2009 appointments were "fresh," Rule 17 did not apply. It held that the precondition for Rule 17 is not "regularisation," but appointment in a substantive capacity. The appointment orders clearly indicated that the appellants were appointed to substantive posts. This was sufficient to trigger Rule 17, provided there was no interruption of duty (which the Council did not allege).
Distinguishing Umadevi and Correcting the Single Judge: The court found that the Single Judge had misdirected itself by focusing on Umadevi and the lack of a right to regularisation. This case was not about a right to be regularised; it was about the counting of past service once a person had already been appointed to a substantive post. The principle of Umadevi was therefore not attracted.
Distinguishing Vasudev: The court held that Vasudev was not applicable because it was based on the specific DoPT Scheme of 1993, which the appellants had not shown was adopted by the Council.

6. New Legal Framework Established

This judgment does not establish a new legal principle but provides a significant clarification and correct application of existing law, particularly the interplay between Umadevi and Sheela Devi in the context of pensionary benefits. Its key contributions are:

Clarifying the Scope of Umadevi: The judgment clarifies that Umadevi applies to the right to claim regularisation. It does not apply to the counting of past service for pension after an employee has already been validly appointed to a substantive post. The two issues are distinct.
"Substantive Appointment" as the Trigger for Rule 17: The judgment firmly establishes that the key to unlocking the benefit of Rule 17 is an appointment to a substantive capacity, regardless of whether the employer labels it as "regularisation" or a "fresh appointment." As long as the link of service is unbroken, Rule 17 applies.
Correcting Erroneous Application of Sheela Devi: The Division Bench corrected the Single Judge's failure to apply the binding precedent of Sheela Devi, which was squarely on point. This serves as a reminder to lower courts to apply Supreme Court judgments directly relevant to the facts.

7. Examination and Analysis by the Court

The court's analysis was methodical and demonstrated a clear hierarchy of legal sources.

Statutory Interpretation First: The court began by examining the Council's own Rules (1981) to confirm the applicability of the CCS Pension Rules. This was a crucial first step.
Application of Binding Precedent: It then moved to the central legal question and applied the binding Supreme Court precedent in Sheela Devi, which directly interpreted Rule 17. This was the correct approach—applying the higher court's interpretation of a central rule.
Factual Analysis: The court examined the facts (the chart of service) and found that the requirement of "without interruption of duty" was met. The Council did not contest this point.
Distinguishing Irrelevant Precedent: The court carefully distinguished both Umadevi and Vasudev, showing why they were not applicable and why the Single Judge had erred in relying on them. This demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the law.
Rejection of Label-Based Argument: The court refused to be swayed by the label "fresh appointment." It looked at the substance of the matter: the employees were now in substantive posts, having served continuously from their initial engagement. This substance-over-form approach is a hallmark of equitable judicial reasoning.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical Analysis:

This judgment is a textbook example of an appellate court correcting an error of law made by a Single Judge. It is a robust defense of employees' pensionary rights.

Strengths: The primary strength is its doctrinal clarity and fidelity to Supreme Court precedent. It correctly identifies the ratio of Sheela Devi and applies it to the facts. By distinguishing Umadevi, it prevents a broad principle (no right to regularisation) from being used to defeat a specific statutory right (counting past service for pension under Rule 17). The substance-over-form approach in rejecting the "fresh appointment" label is particularly strong and just.
Correctness: The decision is legally sound. The Council, by its own Rules, had made the CCS Pension Rules applicable. Rule 17 provides a clear statutory mechanism. The employees met the conditions of that rule. The Council's attempt to deny this benefit based on a self-serving label was rightly rejected.
Practical Impact: The judgment provides a clear roadmap for similar cases involving employees of statutory bodies who have a history of casual/contractual service followed by substantive appointment. It affirms that such employees are entitled to the option under Rule 17 to count their pre-2004 service for pension, potentially bringing them under the more beneficial OPS. The time-bound directions ensure that the relief is not illusory.

Final Outcome:

The appeal was allowed. The court issued the following directions:

Single Judge's Order Set Aside: The judgment and order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.
Options to be Invited: The respondent-Council was directed to invite options from the appellants (or their legal heirs) in terms of Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, within ten weeks.
Process to be Completed: After options are received and necessary amounts (if any) are remitted, the process of fixing pension/family pension was to be completed within a total period of five months from the date of the order.
Costs: No order as to costs.