Back
2013 Supreme(HP) 1032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Rattani Devi — Appellant
Vs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh — Respondent
CWP No. 4161 of 2012-G
Decided on : 09-05-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pramod Thakur and Meenakshi Sharma Addl. A.Gs with Neeraj Sharma, Dy. A.G.
For the Respondent:Sunil Awasthi, Advocate
The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, specifically rules 24, 25, 54, and 54-A, govern the forfeiture of past service upon dismissal or removal, reinstatement, and entitlement to pension.
Headnote:
PENSION - Family Pension - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules - Rule 24, 25, 54, 54-A - The court discussed the application of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, specifically rules 24, 25, 54, and 54-A, in the context of the petitioner's entitlement to family pension after her husband's reinstatement and subsequent removal from service. The court emphasized the forfeiture of past service upon dismissal or removal and the conditions for reinstatement and entitlement to pension under the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, widow of Sh. Kushal Singh, sought family pension after her husband's reinstatement and subsequent removal from service. The court noted the petitioner's acquittal by the Honble Supreme Court and the delay in filing the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, citing the petitioner's failure to satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the petition after the accrual of the cause of action.
Issues: Entitlement to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, delay in filing the present petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the forfeiture of past service upon dismissal or removal and the conditions for reinstatement and entitlement to pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and pending application(s), if any, were also disposed of. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Petitioner is widow of Sh. Kushal Singh. Sh. Kushal Singh was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department on 10.7.1961. A memorandum was served upon Sh. Kushal Singh under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He was permitted to file reply within ten days to the memorandum. Sh. P.A. Sharma, Director of Departmental Inquiries, Himachal Pradesh was appointed as Inquiry Officer by the Superintendent Engineer on 20.5.1972 to inquire into the charges framed against him. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report during August, 1975. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the inquiry report and held that charges 1, II, III and IV were proved against Sh. Khushal Singh, Junior Engineer. Thereafter, Sh. Kushal Singh was served with a notice by the Disciplinary Authority on 6.11.1975. Sh. Khushal Singh submitted the reply to the same on 9.12.1975. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e. Chief Engineer (South) after taking into consideration the representation furnished by the petitioner ordered his removal on 22.6.1976. Thereafter, Sh. Kushal Singh was appointed by way of fresh appointment as Junior Engineer in Investigation Division, H.P.P.W.D. Sundernagar on 24.7.1978. It is evident from Annexures R-1, II, III and IV filed with the supplementary affidavit on 27.4.2013 by Sh. R.K. Malhotra, Superintending Engineer, I.P.H. Circle, Sunderangar that the appointment of Kushal Singh was fresh as Junior Engineer in Investigation Division, H.P.P.W.D. Sundernagar. He was paid minimum basic pay by the employer.
2. Petitioner was charged with offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering Sh. Khushal Singh. She was convicted by the Sessions Judge. The conviction was upheld by this Court. However, petitioner was acquitted by the Honble Supreme Court on 4.2.1993. Petitioner submitted an application seeking family pension on 4.2.1993, which was followed by representation dated 4.4.1994. She also served a legal notice on 5.9.1996, to which reply was filed by the competent authority on 3.3.1997. She again served legal notice on 2.4.2002. Petitioner has also placed on record Annexure P-7 whereby Superintending Engineer has sent certain information to the Public Information Officer-cum-Executive Engineer (SP) on 23.3.2007.
3. Mr. Sunil Awasthi has strenuously argued that the petitioner is entitled to family pension after her acquittal by the Honble Supreme Court on 4.2.1993. He has also argued that once the husband of the petitioner has been reinstated, the entire service of Khushal Singh with effect from 1961 till his death is to be taken into consideration. He has placed strong reliance on rule 25 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
4. Mr. Pramod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently argued that petitioners husband was appointed as fresh Junior Engineer on 24.7.1978. He has worked only for one month and eight days. His appointment was temporary and he was paid minimum basic pay. Mr. Pramod Thakur has also contended that the services with effect from 10.7.1961 rendered by the petitioners husband stood forfeited after removal from service on 22.6.1976. He has further contended that since the petitioners husband has only worked for one month and 28 days, his case for family pension was not covered under rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings meticulously.
6. What emerges from the facts enumerated herein above is that the petitioners husband was appointed as Junior Engineer on 10.7.1961. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on 27.11.1971, which resulted into his removal on 22.6.1976. According to rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a service or post entails forfeiture of his past service. It is true that Sh.
