Point of Law: Rule 26.2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, provides that technical resignation does not entail forfeiture of service rather, past services are to be counted towards pension, if new post is in pensionable establishment.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Being aggrieved with communication dated 7.11.2017 (Annexure A-11) issued under the signatures of Project Coordinator, Himachal Pradesh State Electronic Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter, ‘Corporation’), whereby request made by the petitioner to allow the benefit of pension provided under Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 (hereinafter, ‘Scheme’) came to be refused, petitioner earlier approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 701 of 2018, which on abolition of the Tribunal, came to be transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWPOA No. 3472 of 2020, praying therein for following main reliefs:

“i) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to hold the Applicant entitled to the benefit of grant of Pension under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999 which is equivalent to CCS Pension rules, 1972. The Applicant may also be held entitled to GPF and Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity, in the interest of justice.

ii) That the impugned rejection of the representation, Annexure A-11 may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. For having bird’s eye view, fact, which may be relevant for the adjudication of the case the case at hand are that the petitioner was appointed as Typist-cum-Clerk in the office of respondent No. 3 on 3.9.1992 as is evident from appointment letter, Annexure A-1. Petitioner was promoted in the respondent Corporation as a Junior Assistant on 16.7.1996. By way of Notification dated 29.10.1999 issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Scheme was formulated (Annexure A-2). Aforesaid Scheme provided by way of clause 1(2) that all pensionary benefits of the employees of the participating H.P. Corporate Sector shall be determined in accordance with the provisions laid down in Central CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Central Civil Service (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 as amended and adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Government for the State Government employees, save as otherwise provided in this scheme.

3. The Scheme was duly adopted by respondent No.3. In terms of aforesaid Scheme, petitioner was called upon to exercise option on prescribed format by respondent No.3 by way of letter dated 27.11.1999 Annexure A-3. In response to the same, petitioner exercised her option on 29.11.1999 (Annexure A-4). By way of said option, petitioner opted for the Scheme, however, vide Notification dated 2.12.2004,aforesaid Scheme was repealed by Government with condition that the employees of Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector, who retired from services w.e.f. 1.4.1999 to the date of publication of this Notification, shall continue to be governed under the provisions of the scheme so repealed, provided such retired employees have opted for such Scheme and have otherwise become eligible for pension under the Scheme. (Annexure A-5).

4. Petitioner, who was working as a Junior Assistant with respondent No.3, came to be appointed as a Junior Assistant with respondent No.2 on deputation by way of office order dated 23.8.2001 (Annexure A-6) In the office of respondent No.2 petitioner was promoted as a Senior Assistant by way of office order dated 11.1.2002 Annexure A-7. Subsequently vide office order dated 30.10.2004 (Annexure A-8), petitioner was permanently absorbed with respondent No. 2. Technical resignation submitted by petitioner from the post of Junior Assistant in the office of respondent No.3, was from the date of permanent absorption i.e. 30.10.2004. (Annexure A-9).

5. Since the Scheme remained in operation with effect from 1.4.1999 to 2.12.2004 and petitioner had left the pensionable establishment in order to take up job in respondent No.2, she staked her claim for grant of pension in terms of Scheme. However, fact remains that the prayer of the petitioner was not accepted. T