IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Shri Bhim Sen S/O Sh. Ganga Ram - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh Through Principal Secretary (Forests) To Government Of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla - Respondent
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4374 OF 2021
Decided On : 16-06-2022
CCS (Pension) Rules – Pension – Retirement at the age of Superannuation – Respondent-department does not have any work charge establishment – Denial of pension – Held, entitled for pensionery benefits. [Para 4]
Finding of the Court:
Respondent-department is itself very well aware that period of work charge service followed by regular service is to be considered for the purpose of grant of pension. That being so, respondent-department cannot take contrary plea to defeat the pension claim of the petitioner - Objection that the petitioner was regularized subsequent to the cut off date of 15.5.2003 will also not advance the case of the respondents for denying pensionary benefits to the petitioner. This for the reason that pension is being claimed by the petitioner not on the strength of the date of his regularization but from the date of conferment of work charge status upon him. The work charge status was conferred upon the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2002 i.e. much prior to the cut off date of 15.5.2003 when the Contributory Pension Scheme 2006 came into force.
Result: Allowed
ORDER :
The petitioner superannuated on 20.8.2018 after rendering 26 years of service in different capacities. Respondents have denied him pension, compelling him to file this writ petition.
2. Facts :-
2(ii) The judgment dated 19.6.2007 passed by learned Tribunal was implemented and work charge status was assigned to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2002 vide order dated 20.7.2011.
2(iii) Vide order dated 15.3.2008 service of the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 12.10.2007.
2(iv) Petitioner superannuated on 20.8.2018. He has not been paid pension by the respondents.
3. During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submission only for the grant of pension to the petitioner.
4. Observations :-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, considered the material on record as well as the applicable legal position. On consideration of the entire material on record and the legal position, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed for the following reasons:
4(ii) The stand of the respondent-State for denying pension to the petitioner is based on three grounds. Firstly that conferment of work charge status is not included under CCS (Pension) Rules and is not on a post. Therefore, such service cannot be counted as qualifying service for pension. Secondly, that the petitioner was regularized on 15.3.2008. His date of regularization falls beyond the cut off date of 15.5.2003 indicated in new Pension Scheme 2006. The petitioner, therefore, is to be construed as an appointee subsequent to the cut off date of 15.5.2003. The CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 will not be applicable to the case of petitioner in view of H.P. Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006 which came into force w.e.f. 15.3.2003. Third ground urged is that the respondent-department does not have any work charge establishment. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of pension by counting the work charge service rendered by him prior to his regularization.
4(iii) The issue whether work charge service is to be counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits is no more res integra. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2384 of 2018, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Others versus Sh. Matwar Singh & Another, decided on 18.12.2018 has held that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions to the contrary, are liable to be ignored. Matwar Singh’s was a case where the writ petitioner, a daily waged worker in the Forest Department was retrospectively conferred work charge status w.e.f. 1.5.2002. His services were regularized w.e.f. 6.9.2007. Pension was declined to him on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualifying service. In the backdrop of these facts, the Hon’ble Bench observed as under:
“3. It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pensio
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.