IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Ayodhya Dass - Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No.7142 of 2025
Decided on : 02-05-2025
(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Notification dated 04.05.2023 - Amendment to pension rules - Petitioner retired at 58 years but claimed eligibility for pension under amended rules allowing retirement at 60 years - Respondents rejected petitioner's option for pension under old scheme due to late submission - Court emphasized the need for reasonable notice to Class-IV employees regarding option timelines - Previous judgments cited to support leniency in enforcing timelines for pension options. (Paras 2, 4, 5)
(B) Administrative Law - Fairness in administrative action - The court held that the rigors of the memorandum regarding option timelines should not be applied harshly against lower-class employees who may not be aware of such requirements. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired employee of the Education Department, sought pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 after missing the option deadline due to lack of awareness about the new rules and procedures. He argued that the notification did not specify a timeline for exercising the option.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for pension under the amended rules, acknowledging the need for reasonable communication regarding option timelines for lower-class employees.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules despite missing the option deadline and the fairness of applying strict timelines to lower-class employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents must consider the petitioner's case afresh, emphasizing that the lack of awareness about the option timeline should not penalize lower-class employees.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions to reconsider the case.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondents No.5 and 6, respectively.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for disposal at this stage.
2. Petitioner was engaged on part-time basis in the respondent-Education Department. His services were regularized in the year 2003. He retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation in October 2012 at the age of 58 years, after rendering nine years of regular service. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents gave him benefit of Baldev Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others,
3. On 04.05.2023, State Finance Department notified the Central Civil Services (Pension) (Himachal Pradesh Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2023, brought into force w.e.f. 01.04.2023. The notification amended Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As per notification, the amended rules were to apply to those Government servants as well, who were appointed substantively to the civil services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh during the period 15.05.2003 to 31.03.2023 coveredunder Contributory Pension Scheme (National Pension System) and opted to shift to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. They were to get pensionary benefits under these rules subject to deposit of the Government contribution and dividend/return earned thereon, under the National Pension System to the State Government.
Further, as per second proviso to Rule 2(g), the rules were to apply to the Government servants who had already retired or died in harness during 15.05.2003 to 31.03.2023, if such retired Government servants or eligible family members exercise their option to get the pensionary benefits under these rules from prospective date i.e. w.e.f.01.04.2023.
Respondents issued another office memorandum dated 04.05.2023, issuing instructions/SOPs. Clauses (i),(ii), (iii) and (vii) of the said office memorandum read as under: -
“(i) An employee, who wishes to remain under the National Pension System, shall exercise an option, within sixty days from the date of issuance of these instructions, at Annexure-I, which shall be duly notarized and submitted to the Head of Office. Such employee(s), shall continue to be covered under the National Pension System (also known as Contributory Pension Scheme), The contributions (both employer's and employee's share) under the National Pension System, shall be deposited as per the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Regulations, till the retirement of employee(s).
(ii) The Government employees who wishes to be covered under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, also known as Old Pension Scheme, shall exercise an option, within sixty days from the date of issuance of these instructions, on the prescribed format at Annexure-II. An undertaking shall also be furnished by such employees on the prescribed format at Annexure-III. The 'option' and 'undertaking' as per the Annexure-II and Annexure- III, shall be duly notarized and same will be submitted to the Head of Office.
(iii) An Option once exercised by the Government employees, either opting for the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 or the National Pension System shall be final and irrevocable. If an employee fails to exercise an option within the stipulated period, it shall be deemed that he/ she wishes to be continued under the National Pension System.
(iv) to (vi) ………………………………
(vii) Employees, who were covered under the National
The court emphasized that strict timelines for exercising pension options should not be applied harshly against lower-class employees unaware of such requirements.
The court emphasized the need for reasonable notice to employees regarding option exercise timelines for pension eligibility, particularly for lower-class employees unaware of such requirements.
The court ruled that procedural rigidity should not deny pension benefits to employees, especially when eligibility is undisputed, emphasizing fair treatment for lower-grade employees.
The right to voluntary retirement is substantive and governed by the rules in effect at the time of application, not amendments enacted thereafter.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.