Back
2020 Supreme(HP) 24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Kedar Singh Negi - Appellant
Versus
H.p. High Court & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 537 of 2018
Decided On : 07-01-2020
Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate, Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, Shalini Thakur, Advocate, Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate, Ashok Sharma, Advocate, Desh Raj Thakur, Advocate, Narinder Singh Thakur, Advocate
Services rendered on adhoc basis followed by regular appointment are to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. Adhoc period should be treated as qualifying service for pension.
Headnote:
Pensionary Benefits - Adhoc Appointment - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 17, Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Narata Singh, Habib Khan vs. The State of Uttarakhand, Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. - Ram Krishan Sharma vs. The Accountant General (A&E), HP - Services rendered on adhoc basis followed by regular appointment to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. Adhoc service to be counted for pensionary benefits. Adhoc period to be treated as qualifying service for pension. Services rendered even prior to regularisation in any capacity to be counted towards qualifying service even if not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as a Peon and later regularized. The petitioner sought pensionary benefits and GPF account number, which were denied by the respondents. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the aforementioned reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the services rendered on adhoc basis followed by regular appointment are to be counted towards qualifying service for pension. The court held that the adhoc period should be treated as qualifying service for pension and directed the respondents to allot GPF Account Number to the petitioner and govern the petitioner under the old pension scheme.
Issues: The main issue was whether the services of an employee appointed on adhoc basis followed by regular appointment should be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and various judgments including Kesar Chand vs. State of Punjab, Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Narata Singh, Habib Khan vs. The State of Uttarakhand, Prem Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, Sita Ram vs. State of H.P., and Ram Krishan Sharma vs. The Accountant General (A&E), HP to establish that services rendered on adhoc basis followed by regular appointment are to be counted towards qualifying service for pension.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned rejection was quashed and set aside. The respondents were directed to count the services rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis prior to his regularisation towards qualifying service for the grant of pension and allot GPF Account Number to the petitioner under the old pension scheme.
JUDGMENT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The moot question in this petition is whether the services of an employee appointed on adhoc basis followed by regular appointment is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
2. The issue in fact is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 26.12.2019.
However, before adverting to the said judgment, certain minimal facts need to be noticed.
3. The respondents advertised the post of Peon in the year 2001 and the petitioner being eligible applied for the said post. After undergoing selection and being successful therein, the petitioner was offered appointment vide order dated 5.12.2002 and accordingly he was ordered to be appointed as Peon on adhoc basis. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.9.2005, the petitioner was ordered to be regularised alongwith two other persons namely Sh. Anil Kumar and Heera Lal, who are working as Chowkidars.
4. It is not in dispute that as regards these two persons i.e. Anil Kumar and Heera Lal, they have already been allotted GPF Account Number and it is only the petitioner, who has been kept out of GPF account and is continuing with the Contributory Pension Scheme. Thus, a case of invidious discrimination is clearly made out.
5. That apart, even the Registrar General of this Court had requested the State to count the services rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis till his regular appointment for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, but the said request was not acceded to by respondent No.2, constraining the petitioner to file the instant writ petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs:
(i) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued and the impugned rejection dated 15.12.2015 (Annexure P-8) may very kindly be quashed and set-aside and further directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to allot GPF account number to the petitioner by governing the petitioner with old Pension Scheme instead of new Pension Scheme i.e. Contributory Pension Scheme, 2006.
(ii) That directions may very kindly be issued to count the adhoc service of the petitioner for all purposes including the pension with effect from 05.12.2002 with all consequential benefits in the interest of law and justice."
6. It has been specifically averred by respondent No.1 in its reply that even though respondent No.2 i.e. Accountant General of Himachal Pradesh had informed the High Court regarding the New Contributory Pension Scheme that has been introduced by the H.P. Government for its employees, who joined service on or after 15.05.2003 and would therefore, not cover under the GPF Rules. But the High Court, in turn, after examining the matter informed the Assistant Accounts Officer of respondent No.2 that since the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis w.e.f. 5.12.2002 and thereafter on regular basis w.e.f. 29.9.2005 without any break in service, therefore, the services rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis w.e.f. 5.12.2002 till his regular appointment on 29.9.2005 was to be counted for the pensionary benefits as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and hence, the petitioner was in service before coming into force the New Contributory Pension Scheme, 2006 w.e.f. 15.5.2003 and requested the respondent No.2 to allot the GPF Account Number in favour of the petitioner. However, the office of the respondent No.2 vide endorsement dated 23.11.2006 returned the application form of the petitioner to respondent No.1 i.e. High Court to issue specific order that the adhoc period of the petitioner from 5.12.2002 to 28.9.2005 shall be counted for all pensionary benefits.
7. The respondent No.1, in turn, vide its letter dated 3.2.2007 after complying with the request of respondent No.2 again recommended the case of the petitioner. However, it appears that respondent No.2 thereafter so
