Ad Hoc Service Cannot Override the NPS Cut‑Off: A Detailed Commentary on Adnan Wani & Ors. v. High Court of J&K & Ladakh

1. Introduction

1.1. Case Overview

This commentary examines the judgment of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar in WP (C) No. 2578/2024, titled Adnan Wani & Ors. v. High Court of J&K & Ladakh, reserved on 31.10.2025 and pronounced on 07.11.2025 by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar (authoring the judgment) and Justice Sanjay Parihar.

The petitioners, eight in number, were serving as Orderlies in the establishment of the High Court. They were initially engaged on an ad hoc basis around 2007–2008 and later regularized in 2014–2015 under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010. The core dispute was whether their pre-2010 ad hoc service could be treated as qualifying service for pension so as to bring them under the Old Pension Scheme rather than the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme, 2009 (NPS), introduced by SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009 with effect from 01.01.2010.

1.2. Parties

Petitioners: Eight individuals (Orderlies) engaged ad hoc in the High Court establishment from 2007–2008, later regularized in 2014–2015. They were represented by Ms. Syed Ainain Qadiri, Advocate.
Respondent: High Court of J&K & Ladakh, through its Registrar General, represented by Mr. Aatir Javed Kawoosa, Advocate.

1.3. The Core Legal Issues

Two interlinked questions arose before the Court:

Can long ad hoc service rendered prior to 01.01.2010 be used to escape the NPS and secure coverage under the Old Pension Rules?
Specifically, could the petitioners, who were regularized in 2014–2015, claim that they should be “deemed” to have been appointed prior to 01.01.2010 because their ad hoc employment started in 2007–2008?
Is the concept of “qualifying service” under the old pension regime relevant for employees who are otherwise covered by the NPS?
The petitioners sought to have their ad hoc service counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the pre-NPS rules.

The judgment answers these questions emphatically in the negative, laying down a clear rule: for determining whether an employee is governed by the Old Pension Rules or the NPS, the decisive event is the date on which he is appointed to or brought on the regular establishment; prior ad hoc service is irrelevant for that determination.

2. Summary of the Judgment

2.1. Factual Background and Procedural History

The petitioners were engaged as Orderlies on an ad hoc basis in the High Court establishment around 2007–2008.
Under the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010, Government employees who had completed a prescribed period of continuous ad hoc/contractual service became eligible for regularization.
Initially, this benefit was not extended to the High Court establishment, which prompted the petitioners to file SWP No. 2524/2018.
A Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment dated 25.02.2020, directed that the petitioners be given the benefit of the Act of 2010 for the purpose of regularization.
In consequence, the Registrar General issued Order No. 1444 dated 25.02.2020, regularizing the petitioners with effect from the dates on which each completed seven years of continuous ad hoc service. These dates fell in 2014 and 2015. Their regularization was supported by the creation of eight supernumerary posts by Government Order No. 236-JK(LD) of 2019 dated 16.12.2019.
Because their substantive appointment to the regular establishment occurred after 31.12.2009, they were brought under the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) introduced by SRO 400 of 2009, operative from 01.01.2010.
Realizing the implications of being under NPS, the petitioners submitted a representation to the Registrar General, requesting:
- that their ad hoc service from 2007–2008 be treated as qualifying service for pension, and
- that they be granted the benefit of the Old Pension Rules/Scheme that prevailed prior to NPS.
This representation was rejected by Communication No. 23107 of 2024/RG/NG‑438(1) dated 12.06.2024, on the grounds that:
- the petitioners were appointed/regularized after 31.12.2009,
- they were consequently governed by the NPS, and
- the period of ad hoc appointment was “of no consequence” for the purpose of old pension.
The present writ petition under Article 226 challenged this communication dated 12.06.2024 and sought:
- quashing of the rejection, and
- a direction to treat the petitioners’ ad hoc service as qualifying service for pension under the Old Pension Rules.

2.2. Petitioners’ Principal Contention

The petitioners advanced essentially one substantive argument:

Their ad hoc service, which commenced prior to 01.01.2010 and was continuously rendered until regularization, should be treated as a seamless tenure followed by regularization, leading to a deemed date of appointment in 2007–2008 (not 2014–2015).
If so treated, they would fall within the category of employees “appointed before 01.01.2010” and therefore come under the Old Pension Scheme, enabling them to claim pension under the then-prevailing J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR).

2.3. The Court’s Decision

The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition, holding:

Under SRO 400 of 2009, the decisive test is whether an employee was appointed to government service or brought on the regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010.
The petitioners were admittedly regularized only in 2014–2015 and could not, “by any stretch of reasoning or imagination”, be treated as having been regularly appointed prior to 01.01.2010.
The petitioners never sought nor were they entitled to regularization from a date prior to 01.01.2010; indeed, they did not become eligible for regularization until they had completed seven years of ad hoc service in 2014 or 2015.
The attempt to invoke the concept of qualifying service by asking that ad hoc service be counted is “totally irrelevant” in this context. That concept applies only where an employee is already under the Old Pension Rules and merely needs some portion of non-regular service counted to reach the qualifying threshold; it cannot be used to move an employee from NPS into the old scheme.
For employees appointed on or after 01.01.2010, the old pension rules are “not applicable” and thus the question of counting their ad hoc service as qualifying service for pension under the old rules is “inconsequential and totally meaningless.”

Accordingly, the Court upheld the Registrar General’s communication dated 12.06.2024, concluding that the petition lacked merit.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents and Prior Proceedings Referenced in the Judgment

3.1.1. SWP No. 2524/2018 (Regularization Litigation)

The only judicial proceeding expressly referred to in the judgment is SWP No. 2524/2018, previously filed by the same petitioners. That earlier writ petition challenged the non-application of the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 to ad hoc employees of the High Court establishment.

By its order dated 25.02.2020, a Division Bench held that the benefit of the Act of 2010, which originally appeared designed for “Government employees”, should also extend to eligible ad hoc employees of the High Court’s own establishment. The consequence was:

The Registrar General, by Order No. 1444 dated 25.02.2020, directed that the petitioners be regularized from the date each completed seven years of continuous ad hoc service.
These dates fell in 2014 and 2015, corresponding to when each petitioner completed seven years’ ad hoc service.

The present judgment thereby acknowledges that:

Regularization was not granted with retrospective effect to any date prior to 01.01.2010.
The earlier order's focus was on regularization under the Act of 2010, not on the pension regime applicable thereafter.

Importantly, the present Bench does **not** treat SWP No. 2524/2018 as a precedent for extending old pensionary benefits. It is confined to giving the petitioners a route to substantive appointment (regularization), from which the pension regime follows as per statutory rules in force at the relevant time.

3.1.2. Absence of External Case Law

Notably, the Court does not refer to Supreme Court or other High Court decisions on:

the counting of ad hoc/temporary service for pension, or
the transition from Old Pension Schemes to the NPS.

Instead, the Court’s reasoning is anchored almost entirely in:

the text of SRO 400 of 2009 amending the J&K Civil Service Regulations; and
the chronology of the petitioners’ ad hoc and regular service.

The opinion thus functions more as a textual interpretation of the statutory scheme than as an exposition of precedent-driven doctrine.

3.2. Statutory Framework: SRO 400 of 2009 and the NPS

3.2.1. SRO 400 of 24.12.2009 – The NPS in J&K

The judgment reproduces in extenso the relevant notification: SRO 400 dated 24.12.2009, issued by the Government of the erstwhile State of Jammu & Kashmir under the proviso to Section 124 of the J&K Constitution.

The key features of SRO 400, as highlighted by the Court, are:

In Article 167 (Pension Rules – Extent of Application), a new exception (6) is added:
"(6) The State Government Employees appointed on or after 01.01.2010 shall be governed by 'New Pension Scheme' as per Article 249-M(B) added after 249-M(A) and accordingly, the existing Pension Rules shall not be applicable to Government Employees appointed or brought on regular establishment on, or after, 01.01.2010."
A new Article 240-GG provides that provisions on gratuity and DCRG (Art. 240-B to 240-G) shall not apply to employees appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010.
A note below Article 249-A makes Chapter XIX-A (containing existing pension rules) inapplicable to those appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010.
A new Chapter XIX-AA titled “Defined Contributory Pension Scheme” is inserted:
"249-M(B): Entrants to State Government service joining Government service on or after 01.01.2010 shall be governed by the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme as contained in Schedule XXIII..."
Amendments to Schedule XV and the rules on Family Pension and GPF similarly exclude employees appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010 from the old regime and place them in the NPS framework (including a Tier-II account).

3.2.2. The Critical Phrase: “Appointed or Brought on Regular Establishment”

The judgment places decisive emphasis on the phrase:

“appointed or brought on regular establishment on, or after, 01.01.2010”.

This expression appears repeatedly in SRO 400 and forms the cut‑off criterion for determining whether the old pension rules or the NPS applies to a particular employee.

The Court’s core interpretive move is to hold that:

Being “appointed” or “brought on regular establishment” refers to substantive, regular appointment to a sanctioned post, not to ad hoc, temporary, or irregular appointments.
Ad hoc service prior to regularization does not itself amount to being “brought on the regular establishment”.

Once this understanding is accepted, the petitioners, whose regularization dates fall in 2014–2015, clearly fall on the NPS side of the 01.01.2010 divide.

3.3. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

3.3.1. Determining the Relevant Date of Appointment

The petitioners’ central strategy was to shift the focus away from the formal date of their regularization and towards the start date of their ad hoc engagement. They contended that:

Since their ad hoc service began in 2007–2008 and was followed without break by regularization,
They should be deemed to have been appointed from that earlier date for all service-related and pensionary purposes.

The Court rejects this reasoning as:

“utterly misconceived and frivolous”.

Its reasoning proceeds in several steps:

Nature of Ad Hoc Service
The Court emphasizes that the petitioners were engaged as Orderlies on an ad hoc basis, and, at that time, there were not even sanctioned posts for them within the establishment:
“As a matter of fact, the petitioners had been continuing as Orderlies on adhoc basis without there being even the post available for the purpose.”
Only later were eight supernumerary posts created by Government Order No. 236-JK(LD) of 2019 dated 16.12.2019.
Accrual of Right to Regularization
Under the Act of 2010, the petitioners acquired an enforceable right to be brought on the regular establishment only upon completing seven years of continuous ad hoc service, which occurred in:
- 2014 for some petitioners; and
- 2015 for the others.
Thus, as the Court notes:
“The petitioners were thus not entitled to regularization any time prior to 01.01.2010...”
Effect of the Regularization Order
The Registrar General’s Order No. 1444 dated 25.02.2020 regularized the petitioners with effect from the dates on which each completed seven years’ service, i.e., with effect from various dates in 2014 and 2015. There was no attempt, even in that order, to push back the effective date of appointment to 2007–2008 or any date prior to 01.01.2010.
No Case for Retrospective Regularization to Pre‑2010 Date
The Court observes explicitly that:
“The petitioners have not sought their regularization from retrospective date i.e., from any date prior to 01.01.2010.”
In any case, they had no right to such retrospective regularization, as they did not meet the statutory eligibility (seven years’ service) before 2014–2015.
Interaction with SRO 400’s Cut‑Off Date
Given the above, it was impossible to contend that the petitioners were “appointed” or “brought on regular establishment” before 01.01.2010. Accordingly:
“It, therefore, cannot be said by any stretch of reasoning or imagination that the petitioners were regularly appointed or stood brought on regular establishment prior to 01.01.2010 so as to extend them the benefit of Pension Rules as were in operation on the issuance of SRO 400 of 2009.”

Thus, the date of regular appointment/regularization—not the date of initial ad hoc engagement—governs the applicability of the Old Pension Scheme or NPS.

3.3.2. The Limited Role of “Qualifying Service”

The petitioners couched their claim in the language of “qualifying service” for pension, arguing that their ad hoc years should be counted for pensionary purposes. The Court draws an important distinction here.

In paragraph 12, the Court explains:

“It is only in the case of a Government employee who is governed by the Pension Rules which were in operation prior to issuance of NPS, the part of services rendered on temporary or adhoc basis can be treated as a qualifying service so as to enable an employee falling short of qualifying service to the benefit of pension.”

In other words:

The concept of “qualifying service” belongs explicitly to the Old Pension Rules (as contained in the relevant chapters of the J&K Civil Service Regulations).
It operates where an employee is already covered by those rules, and has, for example, twenty years of regular service but needs a few more years to reach the minimum qualifying service for pension (e.g., some portion of temporary or ad hoc service may be counted).
It does not operate to determine which pension regime—old or new—applies. That question is answered first, by reference to SRO 400.

Therefore, the Court concludes in paragraph 13:

“In the instant case, the petitioners having been appointed after 01.01.2010 are not entitled to any pension and, therefore, reckoning of their adhoc services as qualifying service is inconsequential and totally meaningless.”

The phrase “not entitled to any pension” must be understood in context: the Court is referring to pension under the Old Pension Rules. The petitioners remain, in law, covered by the Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS) and its associated retirement benefits, but they cannot claim pension under the repealed (for new entrants) CSR provisions.

3.3.3. Characterisation of the Petitioners’ Argument

The Court’s language is notably firm:

The petitioners’ core argument is labelled “utterly misconceived and frivolous”.
Their “claim to be governed by the Pension Rules as were in vogue on the date of issuance of SRO 400 of 2009 is grossly misconceived.”

This strong phrasing signals that the Court views the line between the Old Pension Scheme and NPS as statutorily rigid. It is not a flexible boundary that can be moved through equitable arguments based on long ad hoc service or perceived hardship.

3.4. Impact of the Judgment

3.4.1. For Ad Hoc Employees Regularized After 01.01.2010

The judgment has clear implications for:

ad hoc, temporary, or contractual employees who began service before 01.01.2010, but
were regularized or appointed to substantive posts after 01.01.2010.

The principle laid down is:

The date of ad hoc engagement is irrelevant for deciding whether the Old Pension Scheme or NPS applies.
Only the date when the employee is appointed or brought on regular establishment counts for applying SRO 400.
Even if ad hoc service commenced in, say, 2005, but regularization is in 2013, the employee is, under SRO 400, an NPS employee.

This cuts off a large potential category of litigation where employees with long pre‑2010 ad hoc service might argue for deemed pre‑2010 appointment.

3.4.2. For the High Court Establishment and Judicial Employees

The case specifically concerns employees of the High Court’s own establishment. It confirms that:

Even where High Court staff gain parity with Government employees in matters such as regularization (via the Act of 2010),
Pensionary entitlements for such staff will still be determined strictly by SRO 400’s “appointed or brought on regular establishment” cut-off of 01.01.2010.

Thus, judicial employees cannot rely on internal High Court orders of regularization to argue for escape from the NPS, unless those orders themselves regularize employees with effect from a date prior to 01.01.2010 (and even then, such orders must be legally justifiable under the governing statutes).

3.4.3. For Public Finance and Pension Policy

From a policy perspective, the judgment:

Strengthens the fiscal certainty associated with the NPS transition by rejecting backdoor claims to the Old Pension Scheme.
Signals that any broad-based relief for pre‑2010 ad hoc employees who were regularized later must come from legislative or policy intervention, not from judicially crafted deeming fictions.
Reduces the scope for inequitable differentiation based on how aggressively or leniently different departments might have regularized ad hoc employees around the cut-off date.

3.4.4. For Future Litigation on NPS versus Old Pension Scheme

The judgment will likely be cited in future cases involving:

Employees whose ad hoc or contractual service spans the 01.01.2010 cut-off;
Attempts by such employees to have their initial engagement date treated as the date of “appointment” for pension;
Arguments that ad hoc service should allow an NPS employee to “graduate” into the old pension scheme through the mechanism of “qualifying service”.

The Court’s clear message is that:

First: determine whether an employee is under the Old Pension Scheme or NPS using the statutory cut-off based on regular appointment date.
Only then: if the employee falls under the Old Pension Scheme may issues of qualifying service for pension be considered.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1. Ad Hoc Appointment

An ad hoc appointment is:

usually temporary,
made without following the full regular recruitment process, and
often not against an existing, sanctioned post.

Such appointments generally do not confer a right to regularization or to pension, unless a specific statute (like the J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010) grants such a pathway.

4.2. Regular Establishment and Regularization

Being on the “regular establishment” means:

The employee holds a substantive post that is sanctioned in the service’s cadre/strength.
The appointment is made following prescribed rules (or is regularized under a special statute) and carries full service benefits.

Regularization is the process by which an ad hoc/temporary employee is formally absorbed into the regular establishment. In this case, regularization occurred only after seven years of continuous ad hoc service, and with effect from the completion of that period for each petitioner.

4.3. Supernumerary Posts

A supernumerary post is:

an additional post created over and above the sanctioned strength of a cadre,
usually for a specific administrative purpose, such as accommodating the regularization of particular employees.

Here, eight supernumerary posts were created by Government Order No. 236-JK(LD) of 2019 to house the regularized posts of the petitioners.

4.4. Old Pension Rules / Old Pension Scheme

Before the introduction of the NPS, pension in J&K was governed by the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), under which:

Pension was generally a defined benefit based on last pay drawn and years of qualifying service.
Employees had to complete a minimum period of “qualifying service” (a number of years) to be eligible for pension.
Certain non-regular service, such as ad hoc or temporary service, could sometimes be counted as qualifying service, subject to detailed rules.

4.5. New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS)

The NPS, introduced in J&K by SRO 400 of 2009 with effect from 01.01.2010, is:

a defined contributory scheme, where:
- the employee contributes a fixed percentage of salary to a pension account;
- the Government also contributes; and
- final benefits depend on accumulated corpus and market returns.
applicable to all employees “appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after 01.01.2010”.
designed to replace the old defined benefit pension for new entrants.

The NPS does not use “qualifying service” in the same sense as the old CSR-based pension; retirement benefits flow from accumulated contributions, not from length of qualifying service alone.

4.6. Qualifying Service

“Qualifying service” under the Old Pension Rules refers to:

the period of service that is counted towards eligibility and calculation of pension,
subject to provisions that may exclude or include certain types of service (e.g., probation, ad hoc, temporary, etc.).

In this judgment, the Court clarifies that:

This concept only matters for employees who are already under the Old Pension Rules, and
It cannot be used to claim entry into the Old Pension Scheme for someone who, by virtue of appointment date, falls under the NPS.

4.7. Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction

The petition was filed under the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction, invoked through a writ petition (civil). This jurisdiction allows the High Court to:

review administrative or quasi-judicial actions of the State or its instrumentalities, and
issue writs (like certiorari, mandamus) to quash illegal orders or compel performance of legal duties.

However, the High Court will not ordinarily use writ jurisdiction to:

override clear statutory mandates (like SRO 400’s cut-off), or
create new entitlements contrary to explicit rules.

5. Conclusion

The decision in Adnan Wani & Ors. v. High Court of J&K & Ladakh articulates and reinforces a crucial principle in pension jurisprudence post-introduction of the NPS:

For determining whether an employee is governed by the Old Pension Rules or by the New Defined Contributory Pension Scheme (NPS), the only relevant factor is whether the employee was appointed to or brought on the regular establishment before or after 01.01.2010. Ad hoc service rendered prior to that date, however long or continuous, does not alter this classification.

From this case, several key takeaways emerge:

Rigid Cut-Off: SRO 400 of 2009 draws a hard line at 01.01.2010. Employees appointed or brought on regular establishment on or after that date are under NPS; those before it remain under the Old Pension Scheme.
Ad Hoc Service Is Not Regular Appointment: Ad hoc engagement, even commencing before 2010 and continuing thereafter, does not amount to being “brought on regular establishment.”
Qualifying Service Is a Second-Level Question: Whether ad hoc service can be counted as qualifying service arises only once it is determined that an employee falls under the Old Pension Rules. It cannot be used to shift an NPS employee into the old scheme.
No Judicial Dilution of Statutory Scheme: The Court resists any attempt to circumvent or soften the statutory pension framework through equitable or retrospective arguments based on long ad hoc service.
Policy Direction: Any broader relief for pre‑2010 ad hoc employees regularized later must come from the legislature or executive policy, not from judicial reinterpretation of SRO 400.

In the broader context of service and pension law, this judgment consolidates the position that NPS is not merely a change of calculation method but a structural shift in pension entitlements. It confirms that such a shift rests on a clear temporal demarcation anchored in formal appointment dates, not in the vagaries of ad hoc service histories. For employees and administrators alike, it provides a firm, text-based rule that reduces uncertainty and litigation over pension classification in the post-NPS era.

Ad Hoc Service and the NPS Cut-Off: Commentary on Adnan Wani & Ors. v. High Court of J&K & Ladakh