Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA
Roshan Lal – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:-
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed with the following reliefs:-
1. By setting aside the impugned annexure P-7 dated 12.03.2009 & P-10 dated 05.11.2012 and the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, along with all the consequential benefits to the petitioner on the same analogy as has been granted to late Sh. Gurdittu Ram.”
2. The petitioner was an employee of Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Ltd. (HPGIC). From 1972 to 1997, petitioner had rendered services as a Driller on daily wage basis. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1998.
3. The services of petitioner were taken on secondment basis in the department of Industries (DoI) Himachal Pradesh in the year 2002 and finally he was absorbed permanently in the same department w.e.f. 11.06.2004 against the post of Chowkidar.
4. Petitioner is seeking the benefit of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by counting his entire regular services with HPGIC. The petitioner is basing his claim on the conditions
The court upheld that a petitioner’s past service could be counted towards pension benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules where explicit conditions of absorption allowed for such recognition.
Absence of prior permanent status disqualifies entitlement to pension under the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, despite permanent absorption in a non-pensionable establishment.
Points of law : Payment of lump sum amount to persons on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body.- (1) Where a government servant referred to in Rule 37 elects alternative of receiving ....
Pension – Pension scheme(s) floated by State Government form a part of delegated beneficial legislation and ought to be interpreted widely subject to such interpretation not running contrary to expre....
Past service under ICMR and WHO cannot be counted for pension benefits due to lack of CPF contributions, as per Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules; distinctions between cases support the dismissal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of ad hoc service as qualifying for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the interplay between ad hoc service, regula....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
