Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 61
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Paramjeet Singh – Petitioner
Versus
The State of H.P. and Others – Respondents
C.W.P.O.A. No. 5341 of 2020
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Abhyendra Gupta.
For the Respondents: Rajan Kahol, B.C. Verma.
Point of Law: Rule 9 sub rule 30 of Fundamental Rules, provides that, “Temporary post means a post carrying a definite rate of pay sanctioned for a limited time.
Headnote:
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Contributory Pension Rules, 2006 – Fundamental Rules – Rule 9 (30) – General Provident Fund Rules – Rule 4 – Services were regularized - Not to contribute towards GPF - Petitioner herein was engaged as Part Time Worker 1990 but his service were converted into Whole Time Contingent Paid Worker vide order (Annexure A-1) in time scale of pay - Petitioner became a temporary employee and was entitled to contribute to GPF - Perusal of Annexure A-2, i.e. annual statement of GPF, reveals that petitioner after allotment of GPF started making contribution towards GPF – Petitioner is suffering recurring losses thus, keeping in view his status and plight, it would be better and just to ignore delay in filing petition at hand. [Para 14]
Finding of the Court: Perusal of above decisions shows that in matters of recurring cause of action, delay and laches or limitation will not thwart claim so long as claim subsists – In case at hand, petitioner is suffering recurring losses thus, keeping in view his status and plight, it would be better and just to ignore delay in filing petition at hand – Similar observation has been made by a Co-ordinate Bench of Court, wherein it has been held that where Court is dealing with one of fundamental rights of poor workman, its role is that of a sentinel for protection of fundamental rights of weak and down-trodden and cannot, therefore, easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse reliefs solely on jejune ground of delay and laches.
Result: Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. In the year 1990, petitioner herein was engaged as Part Time Worker 1990 but his service were converted into Whole Time Contingent Paid Worker vide order dated 29.12.2001 (Annexure A-1) in time scale of pay. On account of aforesaid order dated 29.12.2001, petitioner became a temporary employee and was entitled to contribute to GPF. He applied for allotment of GPF number and Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh allotted GPF number to the petitioner. Perusal of Annexure A-2, i.e. annual statement of GPF, reveals that the petitioner after allotment of GPF started making contribution towards GPF.
2. However, in 2006, petitioner was asked not to contribute towards GPF on the ground that his services were regularized in June, 2003. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the respondents, petitioner approached Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way OA No. 5820 of 2018, which on account of abolishment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, stands transferred to this court and re-registered as CWPOA No. 5341 of 2020 praying therein for following main relief:
“That the respondents maybe ordered to allow the applicant to contribute to GPF and the previous contribution may be ordered to be realized from the pay of the applicant.”
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that the facts as noticed herein above are not in dispute. In nutshell, case of the respondents as set up in the reply and further canvassed by Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General is that since the petitioner was made regular Class IV employee after 15.5.2003, he is to be governed by Contributory Pension Scheme applicable with effect from 15.5.2003. It has been claimed by the respondents that Government servants appointed after 15.5.2003 on regular basis are not entitled to GPF but entitled to CPF contribution. If the reply of the respondents is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that after petitioner’s being declared as a temporary employee, he was permitted to contribute towards GPF. Petitioner continued to make subscriptions towards GPF till February, 2007 but thereafter, he was asked not to make any subscription by the respondents. Reply further reveals that the GPF deduction was not permitted on account of issuance of letter dated 2.3.2013 issued by the Under Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, whereby it has been informed that issue regarding deduction of either GPF or CPF from salary of Government employee from the date of granting them work charge status, was taken up with the Finance Department for opinion, who after due deliberation has observed that CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are applicable only to regular employees appointed before 14.5.2003 and in terms of Rule 2 of these Rules, all Government employees appointed on or after 15.5.2003 on regular basis are covered under the Contributory Pension Scheme (also called New Pension Scheme) and they are governed by new Contributory Pension Rules, 2006.
4. Mr. Abhyendra Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of this court to judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed by this court in Harinder Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, argued that issue raised in the petition at hand, is squarely covered by aforesaid judgment passed this court, which is further based upon judgment passed by Division Bench of this court in CWP No. 2384 of 2018 titled State of Himachal Pradesh and Others vs. Matwar Singh, whereby Division Bench held that work charge status followed by regular appointment, is to be counted as component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.
5. Having perused judgment rendered in Harinder Singh supra, this court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition stands duly adjudicated by this court in aforesaid judgment and as such, prayer of the petitioner deserves to be allowed.
