Contractual service followed by regular teaching service counts as qualifying for pension under pension rules; legal heirs entitled to revised family pension upon option exercise and service integration.

Judgment :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Original petitioner-Neelam Rani [since deceased] now represented by her husband Sh. Rajinder Singh Rana and other legal heirs], filed a CWP No. 1205 of 2013 and upon establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, was transferred to Tribunal; and upon its abolition the same has now been re-transferred to this Court as CWPOA No. 2083 of 2019, seeking the following relief(s):

“(i). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authority to grant the benefit of vacation salary for the period the present petitioner had worked as a JBT on contract.

(ii). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of revision of pay scales and revision of admissible allowances during the period the present petitioner had worked as a JBT on contract.

(iii). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of the contractual service rendered as a JBT for the purpose of pension, other benefits etc.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Grievance of the Original Petitioner-Neelam Rani is that the she is physically handicapped as per the Disability Certificate dated 03.06.2000 [Annexure P-1]. Despite having undergone Kidney Transplantation in 1995 as per [Annexure P-1 to Annexure P-4], Original Petitioner was appointed as Junior Basic Teacher [JBT on contract basis] on 15.03.1997 [Annexure P-5], which was modified, leading to her joining as JBT on 18.03.1997 [Annexure P-6]. Petitioner filed an Original Application No. 1020 of 2000 on 03.08.2000, which was disposed of by State Administrative Tribunal apprehending her replacement by a regular incumbent but petitioner continued in service as JBT on contract basis till her appointment as a Regular Trained Teacher [Arts] on 05.09.2001. In this backdrop, the Original petitioner-Neelam Rani, filed the instant petition, with the prayers for releasing the vacation salary and for counting contractual service towards regular service rendered as TGT [Arts] 05.09.2001 onwards. Notably, the Original Petitioner-Neelam Rani, died during service on 20.08.2021 [Annexure A-1 enclosed with CMP.M No. 989 of 2022]. After her death, the substituted legal heirs i.e. the husband of the petitioner had sought the same relief which had accrued in favour of her late wife Neelam Rani, as aforesaid, with all consequential benefits.

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 25.03.2013, the State Authorities were directed to file Reply. No Reply was filed by the State Authorities.

3(i). Upon transfer of matter to State Administrative Tribunal and its listing on 04.01.2019, the State Authorities were again directed to file the reply, but in vain. The matter was again listed on 03.08.2022, before a Coordinate Bench of this Court, when, while deciding the applications for bringing on record the legal heirs, the State Authorities, were further granted time to file the Reply with a default clause that, in case, of non filing of Reply the right to file Reply shall stand closed. Despite opportunity, no reply was filed by the State Authorities, leading to the closure of the right to file the Reply in aforesaid terms. Upon listing of the matter on 19.11.2025 and on the persuasive request made by Learned State Counsel, matter was adjourned, so as to enable the Counsel for the parties to have Instructions in the matter. Upon taking up of the case today, no Instructions have been furnished to this Court by the official respondents.
Keeping in view the nature of the controversy which is no longer res-integra, this Court proceeds to dispose of the instant petition, at this stage, and that too without reply, which stands already closed, as referred to above.

4. Heard, Mr. Nitin Thakur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumi