Court directed state authorities to expeditiously decide long-pending claims of daily wagers regularized post-2003 for switch to Old GPF/pension scheme from New CPF/NPS, deprecating delay without merits adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

CWPOA Nos.5302 of 2019 & 6621 of 2020
As prayed for by Ms. Babita Chauhan, Learned Vice Counsel and Mr. Mohan Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioners [appearing in CWPOA No.5302 of 2019 & CWPOA No.6621 of 2020, respectively] that these petitions are de-linked from CWPOA No.7310 of 2020. Ordered accordingly. In these petitions separate orders are being passed.

2. Since common question is involved and prayer(s) are identical, therefore, with the consent of parties, all these cases are taken up for disposal together, at this stage.

3. Learned Counsel for petitioner(s), in respective petitions submits that ends of justice will suffice, in case, CWPOA No.7310 of 2020, In Re; Roop Lal Versus Municipal Corporation, Shimla , be treated as ‘Lead Case’ for adjudication of the connected cases listed today [28.11.2025]. [Statement Taken on Record].

4. Petitioner in ‘Lead Case’, namely Roop Lal, initially filed an Original Application No.3202 of 2019 before Learned State Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.7310 of 2020, wherein, the petitioner has sought the following relief:-

“7(a) That the present OA may kindly be allowed and directing the respondent to place Applicant under the Old GPF scheme and allot GPF number instead of CPF number, as per latest Hon’ble Apex Court decision in a case titled as Apex Court Judgment titled as “State of Punjab & Haryana vs Harbans Lal.”

FACTUAL MATRIX IN ‘LEAD CASE’ [CWPOA NO.7310 OF 2020:
5. Case set up by Learned is that the petitioner was initially engaged as daily waged Mazdoor in December 1998 in Respondent-Corporation and he continued to work till his regularization w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and though the petitioner was to be governed by Old General Provident Fund Scheme [in short ‘Old GPF Scheme’] and Central Civil Services [Pension] Rules, 1972 [in short CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972], for treating the entire period of daily wage service followed by regular service as qualifying service towards pension. It is further averred that the Respondent- Corporation has erroneously placed the petitioner in New Contributory Provident Fund Scheme [in short ‘New CPF Scheme’] issued by the Government during the year 2003. It is further averred that as per Rule 2 (h) of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, once the petitioner was appointed in December 1998 prior to 15.05.2003, therefore, the petitioner was to be governed by CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972 and not by New CPF Scheme/Rules and this action has resulted in depriving the petitioner of the benefit of this for entire service to be treated as qualifying service, on regularization for pension etc.
5(i). It is further averred that as per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and Haryana Versus Harbans Lal , the incumbents who were employed as daily wagers, adhoc or temporary prior to CPF Scheme were to be governed by GPF Scheme and were held entitled for pension and therefore, based on the judgment in the case of Harbans Lal, the claim for governing the petitioner for GPF and for resultant pension was asserted in the instant petition. It is further averred that the petitioner has raised his grievance time and again with Respondent-Corporation but till day, Respondent- Corporation has not redressed his grievances. It is further averred that action of the Respondent- Corporation in denying the benefit of Old GPF Scheme and resultant pension to the petitioner as per CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972 and the judgment in the case of Harbans Lal [supra] was claimed to be violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

STAND OF RESPONDENT-MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SHIMLA, IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT:
6. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 24.07.2019, Municipal Corporation, Shimla, has filed Reply-Affidavit dated 05.04.2021 of Commissioner.
6(i). In Preliminary Submissions of the Reply-