Back
2023 Supreme(HP) 138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Sabina, Satyen Vaidya, JJ.
State of H.P. and others -Applicants
Versus
Bhim Sen - Non-applicant
CMP(M) No. 1559 of 2022 in LPA No. 16 of 2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
Point of Law: Conferment of work charge status was not included in Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Headnote:
Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Forest Department - Grant work charge status - Arrears of pension - Retiral benefits - Direct to pay pension including arrears of pension and other retiral benefits to petitioner alongwith interest at market rate - Impugned order may kindly be quashed/modified and respondents be directed to grant work charge status/ regularization to petitioner – Forest Department did not have work charge establishment. (Para 13)
Finding of the Court: Learned Single Judge has rightly negated contention of appellants to effect that Forest Department did not have work charge establishment and, as such, respondent was not entitled to relief claimed in petition - Issue regarding non-existence of work charge establishment in a Department especially Forest Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh has also been settled - Court while delivering judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) had, thus, decided principle that work charge establishment was not a prerequisite for conferment of work charge status and thus, would not confine only to petitioner in case - In view of this, contention raised on behalf of appellants that judgment in Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) was a judgment in personam, cannot be sustained – Court do not find any infirmity or illegality in impugned judgment and same is affirmed.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
CMP(M) No. 1559 of 2022
By way of instant application, a prayer has been made to condone the delay in filing the accompanying Letters Patent Appeal. It is submitted that a delay of 112 days has occurred in filing the appeal due to the reason that after passing of the judgment by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4374 of 2021, the file was routed through different channels in order to obtain legal opinion and administrative clearance. The delay caused in filing the appeal is stated to be un-intentional.
2. We have gone through the contents of the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit filed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. We are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
Appeal be registered.
LPA No. 16 of 2023
Heard.
2. By way of instant appeal, the appellants have assailed the judgment dated 16.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No. 4374 of 2021, titled Bhim Sen vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
3. Vide impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has issued the directions in the following terms :
“For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner eligible for grant of pension alongwith due and admissible arrears under Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to take all required steps in that regard within a period of six weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of”.
4. The respondent was appointed as Forest Worker at Pangi Forest Division Killar of District Chamba on 01.01.1992. He was conferred the work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002. The services of the respondent were regularized w.e.f. 12.10.2007. The respondent retired on 20.08.2018.
5. The respondent approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4374 of 2021 with the prayer in following terms:
a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay pension including arrears of pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner alongwith interest at the market rate.
b) That the respondents be directed to count the service rendered by petitioner as 10 years of daily wage service (1992-2002), 5 years of work charge (1.1.2002 to 12.10.2007) service, 11 years of regular service (12.10.2007 to 28.02.2018). Total 26 years of service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension as per law declared by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 6167 of 2012, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & Others.
c) That the impugned order dated 15.3.2021 (Annexure P-20) may kindly be quashed/modified and the respondents be directed to grant work charge status/regularization to the petitioner after 8 years i.e. with effect from 01.01.2000 with all consequential benefits including seniority, continuity, annual increments, earned leave and pension and all other consequential benefits including arrears accruing thereon.”
6. The appellants contested the petition and filed its reply. The claim of respondent herein was contested on following grounds:-
(i) Conferment of work charge status was not included in Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, therefore, the work charge service was not liable to be counted as qualifying service for pension.
ii) The date of regularization of respondent i.e.015.3.2008 was beyond the cut-off date of 15.5.2003 prescribed in New Pension Scheme-2006.
iii) The appellants-Department did not have work charge establishment.
7. The learned Single Judge after considering all the above noted three objections raised on behalf of the appellants, rejected them and proceeded to allow the petition in above noted terms.
8. Learned Additional Advocate General contended that the impugned judgment suffers from illegality, inasmuch as, learned Single Judge has decided all the contentions raised by the appellants, without correctly appreciating the fact
