Work charge service must be counted towards pension eligibility, and arrears are due from three years prior to the application date.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Petitioner has not been granted due arrears of pension, hence, he has instituted this writ petition.

2. Factual matrix:-

2(i). Petitioner was appointed as Chainman on daily wage basis on 23.03.1992 in Kangra Division. His services were regularized as Chainman on 29.06.2007.

2(ii). Petitioner instituted CWP No.732 of 2011, claiming work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002. The writ petition was decided on 25.02.2011 with a direction to the respondents to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law adverting to the submissions made by the petitioner in his representation.

2(iii). Respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide office order dated 09.01.2012, conferred upon him work charge status w.e.f. 01.04.2002, however, such conferment was made on notional basis. Petitioner then instituted Civil Writ Petition No.9596 of 2012 for grant of work charge status on actual basis and for release of actual monetary benefits. The aforesaid writ petition was decided as T.A. No.3520 of 2015 by the erstwhile learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 26.08.2015. Consequently, the petitioner was granted work charge status on actual basis by the respondents under office order dated 21.10.2016. The financial benefits to him were allowed from three years prior to the date of filing of the petition as per verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta Verus State of H.P., AIR 1998 SC 2819. In the meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.03.2012.

2(iv). Petitioner had put in work charge service w.e.f. 01.04.2002 to 28.06.2007 and regular service from 29.06.2007 to 31.03.2012. The total service rendered by the petitioner on work charge and regular basis comes to ten years.

2(v). The respondents had not released pension to the petitioner as work charge service rendered by him was not being counted towards pension. Petitioner now instituted O.A. No.2904 of 2017 before the erstwhile learned Tribunal, seeking directions to the respondents to count the work charge service rendered by him towards pensionary benefits. The original application was allowed on 10.01.2018. The respondents were directed to count the work charge service rendered by the petitioner towards pensionary benefits and to grant pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner within two months.

2(vi). The respondents assailed the aforesaid decision before this Court in CWP No.2882 of 2018. The writ petition was dismissed on 07.12.2018. Despite the dismissal of their writ petition, the respondents did not release pension to the petitioner. He then instituted a contempt petition, bearing COPC(T) No.494 of 2020. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents released pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018. Taking note of the same, the contempt petition was disposed of on 21.07.2020. The contention of the petitioner was noticed in the judgment that the petitioner was entitled to pension w.e.f. 31.03.2012, i.e. the date of his superannuation. The contempt proceedings were closed in view of release of pension to him. Liberty was, however, reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his surviving grievances, i.e. arrears of pension.

It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.04.2012.

3. Submissions:-

3(i). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pension with effect from three years prior to filing of O.A. No.2904 of 2017. In the aforesaid original application, the petitioner had prayed for counting work charge service rendered by him towards pensionary benefits.

3(ii). Learned Deputy Advocate General on the strength of the reply filed by the respondents submits that in view of the law laid down in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, the