Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Shobhni Devi. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - Respondents
CWPOA No. : 5137 of 2020
Decided On : 01-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General.
IMPORTANT POINT
The right to pension is vested upon completion of qualifying service, and denial of benefits without legitimate reason is unlawful.
Headnote:
(A) CCS (CCA) Pension Rules, 1972 - Retirement age - Notification dated 21.02.2018 - Petitioner retired at 58 years instead of 60 years - Claim for pensionary benefits denied despite qualifying service - Respondents failed to justify withholding benefits - Court found denial without legitimate reason. (Paras 1 , 11 , 16 )
(B) Legal principles - Right to pension is a vested right upon completion of qualifying service - Notification regarding retirement age applies prospectively and does not affect already retired employees. (Paras 8 , 14 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was retired at 58 years on 31.12.2017, despite having completed qualifying service under CCS (CCA) Pension Rules. The petitioner claimed entitlement to pension and benefits based on a subsequent notification and a prior judgment. (Paras 2 , 3 )
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had completed the necessary qualifying service and that the denial of pensionary benefits was unjustified. (Paras 16 , 17 )
Issues: The main issues were the legality of the retirement age applied to the petitioner and the entitlement to pensionary benefits under CCS (CCA) Pension Rules. (Paras 1 , 14 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents had no legitimate reason to withhold pensionary benefits, as the petitioner had completed qualifying service and the relevant notifications did not apply retroactively. (Paras 16 , 17 )
Result: Petition allowed; respondents directed to grant pensionary benefits from the date of retirement.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: -
(a) That the impugned action of the respondent whereby the petitioner has been retired at the age of 58 years may be held illegal. The petitioner may be held entitled from retirement on 31.12.2019 instead of 31.12.2017 in terms of judgment passed in CWP No. 2711 of 2017 with all the consequential benefits in terms of the judgment;
(b) That the respondent department may be directed to count half of the contingent paid service of the petitioner w.e.f. 25.08.2008 to 15.07.2010 towards qualifying service. By applying the instructions issued by the Government, the petitioner shall be having qualifying service of ten years and four months and the petitioner may be held entitled to receive pension and other terminal benefits in terms of the CCS (CCA) pension Rules.
(c) That the petitioner may be held entitled to receive the terminal benefits as per the pension scheme applicable to the government employees prior to the year 2003.
2. The facts, as are relevant for adjudication of the instant petition and as have emerged from the pleadings of the parties, documents filed on the file and instructions placed by respondents on record, are that the petitioner was engaged as part time Water Carrier in the respondents/Department w.e.f. 29.07.1997 and continued to work in the same capacity till 13.07.2008. The services of the petitioner were brought as whole time contingent paid worker w.e.f. 14.07.2008. Petitioner continued in the same capacity till 16.07.2010. The services of the petitioner were regularized as Class-IV employee w.e.f. 17.07.2020. petitioner retired at the age of 58 years on 31.12.2017.
3. Since, the petitioner was not granted pensionary benefits after her retirement, the petitioner approached erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 5133 of 2018 with following prayers:-
“(i) That the impugned action of the respondent whereby the applicant has been retired at the age of 58 years may be held illegal. The applicant may be ordered to be reinstated in service and allowed to continue in service till she attains the age of 60 years, in terms of notification dated 21.02.2018.
(ii That in case the applicant is not reinstated in service the applicant may be held entitled to receive the salary and other monetary benefits from the date of her retirement i.e. 31.12.2018 till the age of 60 years.
(iii) That the applicant may be held entitled to receive the terminal benefits as per the pension scheme applicable to the Government employees prior to the year 2003.”
4. The O.A. No. 5133 of 2018 filed by the petitioner was transferred to this Court after abolition of State Administrative Tribunal and is registered as CWPOA No. 5137 of 2020 i.e. the instant petition.
5. Petitioner amended the petition and the prayers made thereafter in the petition have already been noticed above.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite completion of qualifying service under CCS (CCA) Pension Rules, the respondents have denied her pensionary benefits. Petitioner submits that she has completed regular service for a period of seven years five months and fifteen days. Petitioner also claims to be entitled to additional period of two years in terms of the notification dated 21.02.2018, issued by the State Government, whereby FR 56 has been amended as under:-
“In rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules, after the second proviso to clause (e), the following third proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
“Provided further that a Class IV Government servant appointed on part time/daily wages basis prior to 10.05.2001 and regularized on or after 10.05.2001 shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years.”.
7. Petitioner by amending the petition has pleaded that the benefits of aforesaid notification dated 21.02.2018 will be available to petitioner also in terms of the judgment passed by Hon’b
