ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

“1. That the present original application may kindly be allowed throughout with cost and the action of the Respondent No. 3. whereby, the case for authorization of pension in favor of the applicant has been illegally and arbitrarily rejected by the Respondents vide order dated 27.03.2015 and 10.08.2015 (Annexure A- 3 & A-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside,

1A. Quash order dated 23.11.2015 Annexure A-8, whereby the respondent have wrongly made the recovery/deduction from the GPF account of the applicant and further direct the respondent to refund the same with the up-to-date interest;

1B. Quash rule 1(2) and rule 2 of Himachal Pradesh Civil Service contributory Pensions Rules, 2006, whereby these rules have been given a retrospective application, beside being arbitrary illegal and also against the principal Notification whereby these rules were to be come into force from date of publication in rajpatra.

2. That the respondents may be directed to release the due and admissible superannuation pension w.e.f. June 2015 onwards up to date with interest @ 9% per annum.

1. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from record are that the petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on 7.5.2003 and he joined against such post on 23.5.2003. After having rendered 12 years against the post in question, petitioner stood superannuated on 31.3.2015 Since the petitioner joined his services on 23.5.2003, despite his having been appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher on 7.5.2003, respondent-State denied him regular pension as well as GPF (pay out) on the ground that Government of Himachal Pradesh issued Notification dated 17.8.2006, whereby Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, ‘Pension Rules’) were made inapplicable to the appointments made on or after 15.5.2003. Precisely, grouse of the petitioner is that once he stood appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher on 7.5.2003, and department itself while offering appointment had given 20 days joining time, he could not be denied benefit of pension and GPF in terms of Pension Rules, 1972, on the basis of his joining, which was admittedly after 15.5.2003, whereafter State of Himachal Pradesh had made Pension Rules, inapplicable to the appointments made on or after 15.5.2003.

2. Respondents in their reply have categorically admitted factum with regard to appointment of the petitioner against the post in question on 7.5.2003 but has made an attempt to justify its action in denying pensionary benefits as well as GPF on the ground that since petitioner joined on 23.5.2003, he cannot be held entitled to pension and GPF in terms of Pension Rules, 1972, which were actually made inapplicable to the appointments made on or after 15.5.2003.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, especially Notification dated 17.8.2006, this court finds that expression used in Notification is “appointments made in the State of Himachal Pradesh on or after 15.5.2003” meaning thereby all appointments made after 15.5.2003 would be governed by Notification dated 17.8.2006, whereby Pension Rules, 1972 were made inapplicable to the appointments made on or after 15.5.2003.

4. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that petitioner stood appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher (Arts) on 7.5.2003 and as such, he cannot be denied benefit of Pension Rules, 1972 merely on the ground that he joined his services on 23.5.2003. While offering appointment to the petitioner on 7.5.2003, respondents granted time to the petitioner to join the post within 20 days, as such, it cannot be permitted at this stage to deny pensionary benefits to the petitioner on the ground that he joined service after 15.5.2003. Person similarly situate to that of the petitioner, who was also given appointment on 7.5.2003 but had joined after 15.5.2003, approached this court in CWPOA No. 71 of 2019 (Raj