SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(HP) 994

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Kurian Joseph, Dharam Chand Chaudhary, JJ.
State Of H.P. – Appellant
Versus
Joginder Singh – Respondent
LPA No. 285 of 2010
Decided On : 22-06-2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General
For the Respondent:A.K. Dhiman, Advocate

Headnote:

CCS (Pension) Rules - Rule 49 (3) – Service matter – Pension – Qualification - Contended by the State that the petitioner having not been permitted to be in service and extension of service being not matter of right, the relief could not be granted - Held, Court issued a direction as to whether in terms of Rule 49 sub rule (3) of Rules, 1972, the same could be taken as 10 years. Now the administrative department after consultation with Finance Department has filed affidavit, , wherein it has been clarified that the period of 9 years and 9 months and above should be treated as 10 years in terms of sub rule (3) of Rule 49 of Rules, 1972, as qualifying service of 10 years for the pension - Appeal is disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Kurian Joseph, J.

Whether the service of nine years and nine months can be reckoned as qualifying service of ten years for the purpose of pension is the question arising for consideration in this case. Rule 49 (3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules reads as follows:-

"In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half year and reckoned as qualifying service."

2. In terms of the above rule a person having three months service shall be treated to have completed one half of service for being counted as qualifying service. Logically, a person having service of six months and above, should be treated to have completed two half years for the purpose of qualifying service. In other words, in the case of a person having service of nine years and six months, the qualifying service shall be taken as ten years and thus he shall be entitled to minimum pension. State has come up in appeal against the judgment, dated 9th March, 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has granted relief to the petitioner to the effect that he should be deemed to be in service upto 30th June, 2008, in terms of the letter dated 25.09.2007. That letter pertains to the grant of extension of 10 months of service to complete 10 years of service. Subsequently, the same has been withdrawn. Thus aggrieved, the petitioner filed the writ petition.

3. It is contended by the State that the petitioner having not been permitted to be in service and extension of service being not matter of right, the relief could not be granted.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, it was noted on facts that the writ petitioner had otherwise service of 9 years, 9 moths and 5 days and, therefore, this Court issued a direction as to whether in terms of Rule 49 sub rule (3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the same could be taken as 10 years. Now the administrative department after consultation with the Finance Department has filed affidavit, dated 6th June, 2012, wherein it has been clarified that the period of 9 years and 9 months and above should be treated as 10 years in terms of sub rule (3) of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as qualifying service of 10 years for the pension. In that view of the matter, it has become unnecessary to go into the merits of the writ petition. Therefore, the judgment under appeal is set aside, with a direction to the appellants to work out the relief in terms of Annexure-C, dated 2nd June, 2012 and grant eligible benefits within a period of two months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the Director of Health Services, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition and the officer(s) responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. In the event of interest thus being paid, the matter shall be report to the Accountant General for further action.

5. The appeal is disposed of so also the pending applications, if any.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top