Uninterrupted contractual service followed by substantive regularization on same post counts as qualifying service for family pension under CCS (Pension) Rules Rules 2, 17, 54, entitling widow upon death in harness; rejections misclassifying as ad-hoc quashed as perverse.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN SHARMA, J.

1. Petitioner, Sunita, being the widow of late Dr. Prakash Chand, had initially filed CWP No.1654 of 2012 before this Court and on establishment of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the said Tribunal and now upon abolition, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.959 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs:-

“13(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this petition after calling for the records of the case and perusing the same, set aside and quash impugned orders Annexures P5 and P6 by a Writ of Certiorari, or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, further order or direct the respondents to immediately grant and allow family pension in the case of deceased Govt. servant Dr. Prakash Chand, from the date due, in favour of the petitioner, being his legally wedded wife, a widow now and a writ of Mandamus be issued against the Respondents to this effect.

13(b) Further declare that terms and conditions of contract service Annexure P4, clearly provide for application of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in the case of late Dr. Prakash Chand, M.O. and his service for pensionary benefits including the family pension right from the date when he entered service on 9.08.2000 with the respondent department.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that her husband Late Dr. Prakash Chand was appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis in terms of the modified Notification dated 04.08.2000 [Annexure P-4] and he joined his services in PHC Nihri [Mandi] on 09.08.2000. In terms of the said orders, Dr. Prakash Chand continued to serve the Respondent-State and his services were regularized as a Medical Officer [HPHS-I] in the pay scale of Rs.7880-13500 with initial start of Rs.8000/- and NPA and other allowances on 08.03.2007 [Annexure P-2]. Husband of the petitioner, Dr. Prakash Chand, died during service on 20.07.2011. After his death, the present petitioner, Sunita, moved the case for grant of family pension, but the said request was turned down by Respondent No.5-Accountant General on 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] on the ground that since the deceased Government Servant, Dr. Prakash Chand, was an ad hoc employee w.e.f. 09.08.2000 to 07.03.2007 and such ad hoc service does not count as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, coupled with the fact that petitioner was regularized on 08.03.2007 and was to be governed by Contributory Pension Scheme, therefore, the case was rejected by placing reliance on a communication dated 10.09.2008 [Annexure P-6], which denies the admissibility of pension on the basis of ad hoc service. It is in this background that petitioner, Sunita, being the widow of Late Dr. Prakash Chand, who had died in harness on 20.07.2011 has come up before this Court seeking family pension as admissible to her in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, as the petitioner’s husband had, in fact, rendered contractual service, which is clear from Annexure P-4 dated 04.08.2000 and not rendered ad hoc service, which was factually incorrect.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES-RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 4 IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit of Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, dated 04.07.2012.

(i). In Paras-1, 3 and 8 of Reply-Affidavit, State Authorities have admitted the incumbency of the peti