Back
2011 Supreme(HP) 2647
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
KULDIP SINGH, J.
Mrs. Santosh Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of H.P. - Respondent
CWP(T) No. 12087 of 2008
Decided on : 18-06-2011
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ranjana Parmar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ruma Kaushik, Mr. J.S. Rana, Adv
Headnote:
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 2(g) – Employment and Service matter - Appointed on contract basis - Pensionary benefits - Husband of petitioner, joined service of respondent-department - Work and conduct was throughout to entire satisfaction of his superiors, but services were not regularized - He represented several times to the competent authority for regularisation of his services, but to no effect - Appointed on contract basis for three years at initial stage, he remained in service of respondent department for a period of more than 26 years - Case for regularisation of services of remained under correspondence - Case was sent to Public Service Commission and it was recommended to consider his case for regularization - Personnel Department advised that consultation with Public Service Commission is necessary - It was also stated in communication that it would be unfair in case total service is washed out - Whether Dr. R.P. Sharma was actually registered with said Institution – Held, consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if appointment was valid and legal - Such benefits cannot be given in a case where appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on a false caste certificate - A person who entered service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for post meant for Scheduled Caste, depriving a genuine Scheduled Caste candidate of appointment to that post , does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this court - A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands - He, who comes to the court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor would the court be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour - Petitioner is not entitled to family pension on account of services rendered to department - Thus, seen from any angle, petitioner has no case - In view of above, there is no merit in petition which is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Kuldip Singh, J.
The petitioner has prayed a direction to the State to grant family pension to her from the date of death of her husband Dr. R.P. Sharma along with arrears. The prayer has also been made to release the other retiral benefits such as gratuity, leave encashment etc. to the petitioner along with interest. In alternative, it has been prayed that State may be directed to regularise the services of Dr. R.P. Sharma retrospectively in order to provide pensionary benefits to petitioner and thereafter the pensionary benefits may be ordered to be released to the petitioner along with interest.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Dr. R.P. Sharma, husband of the petitioner, joined service of respondent-department on 19.11.1977. The work and conduct of Dr. R.P. Sharma was throughout to the entire satisfaction of his superiors, but services of Dr. R.P. Sharma were not regularized. He represented several times to the competent authority for regularisation of his services, but to no effect.
3. Dr. R.P. Sharma was appointed on contract basis for three years at the initial stage, he remained in the service of respondent department for a period of more than 26 years. The case for regularisation of services of Dr. R.P. Sharma remained under correspondence. On 31.08.2001 the case of Dr. R.P. Sharma was sent to Public Service Commission and it was recommended to consider his case for regularization. The Personnel Department advised that consultation with the Public Service Commission is necessary. It was also stated in the communication that it would be unfair in case total service of Dr. R.P. Sharma is washed out.
4. The matter regarding regularisation of services of Dr. R.P. Sharma remained under correspondence with the department. In the meantime, show cause notice dated 23.12.2003 was issued to Dr. R.P. Sharma alleging therein that he was registered with Bihar Medical Council, but on inquiry it was found that Dr. R.P. Sharma was not registered with Bihar Medical Council, Dr. R.P. Sharma was directed to submit the original certificates with MBBS Degree. Dr. R.P. Sharma sent the requisite documents to the competent authority in December, 2003 and the department was also informed vide communication dated 01.01.2004. Dr. R.P. Sharma had already given his MBBS Degree to the competent authority on 21.06.2002.
5. The petitioner pursued her case for grant of family pension and other benefits with the authorities and the petitioner was released G.P.Fund. She was, however, directed to submit family pension papers vide communication dated 17.08.2004, but pension has not been released to the petitioner. On the contrary, the petitioner was informed vide communication dated 29.03.2004 that services of Dr. R.P.Sharma have been terminated on 28.02.2004.
6. Inaction of the respondents to release the family pension to the petitioner is wrong, illegal and against Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been alleged that pension is not a bounty but is earned by the Government servant after putting more than 10 years of service with the department. The petitioner believes that family pension has been refused to the petitioner on the ground that Dr. R.P. Sharma was serving the department on contract basis. It has been alleged that contract appointment is temporary service and same is to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The temporary service of the husband of the petitioner is to be recognised as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for grant of family pension on account of 26 years of service rendered by Dr. R.P. Sharma in the department.
7. It has been alleged that Dr. R.P. Sharma had put more than 26 years of service , but he was not regularised which resulted in perpetual injustice to Dr. R.P. Sharma and consequently to the petitioner. It has been alleged that regularisation of services of Dr. R.P. Sharma requires only paper exercise which can be done by ordering ex-post fa
