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.

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 of his permanent absorption in DoI as detailed in the office order dated 11.01.2004, which reads as under:-

“3. The benefit of past services for the purpose of pay protection and pension etc. shall be granted in the case if he will deposit the employer share into Consolidated Fund of the State and employee share into General Provident Fund without waiting for one year service condition in accordance with Rule 38 of the CPF Rules.
4. Any other terminal benefit received by him from his parent office will have also to be deposited into Consolidated Fund of the State.”

5. The petitioner was to retire on 31.03.2009, however, a few days before i.e. on 12.03.2009, the respondents issued office order declining the entitlement of petitioner to the benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

6. The petitioner had challenged the office order dated 12.03.2009 by way of CWP No. 4046 of 2011 before this Court seeking further direction to the respondents to grant pensionary benefits to the petitioner from due date. The said petition was disposed of by this Court on 20.07.2012 in following terms:-

“6. In these circumstances, Annexure P-14 is quashed and set aside with this direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner in consonance with clause-3 of Annexure P-5, within a period of one month from the date when the copy of this order is produced before him. Needless to say that the consideration will be on the basis of the established legal position. While considering this, the 1st respondent will also take into consideration the recommendations of the Departmental Absorption Committee for the purposes of absorption of Class-IV employees, these recommendations obviously would be detailed recommendations. Before parting, I may note that it pains me to send the case for reconsideration again as the petitioner has been fighting tooth and nail since the last more than six years. Petition disposed of. No order as to costs. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.”

7. Though, the aforesaid judgment was challenged by the respondents by filing LPA, however, during the pendency of said appeal, the Additional Chief Secretary vide order dated 05.12.2012, Annexure A-10 rejected the case of petitioner, hence this petition. 

8. The case of the petitioner is that he had completed tenure of 11 years and three months of regular service before his retirement on 31.03.2009. The petitioner was permanently absorbed in the department of Industries with the condition that he would be granted the benefit of past service for the purpose of pay protection and pension etc., provide he deposited employer share of CPF into Consolidated fund of the State and employees share into General Provident Fund.

9. Petitioner is stated to have complied with all the terms and conditi