Services in contingent employment can count towards qualifying service for pensions if regularized, preventing discrimination.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge:

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has H prayed for the following substantive relief: -

“That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may kindly be issued directing the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972. The respondents may further be directed to release the arrears of pension w.e.f. 11.12.2012 till date under CCS Pension Rules 1972 along with interest @ 9% p.a.”

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the husband of the petitioner (Ranbir Singh) was initially engaged as part time contingent paid employee in GSSS Raipur Maidan, District Una on 7.1.1997. The services of Ranbir Singh were upgraded as whole time contingent paid worker on 14.2.2002. His services were regularized w.e.f. 1.10.2003. Ranbir Singh died on 11.12.2012.

3. The petitioner being wife of Ranbir Singh has staked claim to pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (for short, the “Rules”), however, her claim has been denied by the respondents on following grounds: h

(a) The services rendered by Ranbir Singh g after his regularisation till his death fell i short of qualifying service under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.

(b) The rules were made inapplicable to all appointments made in the State of Himachal Pradesh on or after 15.5.2003. According to the respondents, the substantive appointment of Ranbir Singh would commence w.e.f. 1.10.2003 and for such reason, the petitioner would not be entitled to the pensionary benefits under the Rules.

4. In this background, the petitioner is seeking the benefit of service rendered by Ranbir Singh w.e.f. 1.2.2002 as whole time contingent worker towards the qualifying service. It is claimed that on upgradation of service of Ranbir Singh as whole-time contingent worker w.e.f. 1.2.2002, he was allotted ‘GPF’ number and had been contributing towards GPF till 2012.

5. The petitioner would contend that the services rendehred by Ranbir Singh as whole-time worker, though wgere chargeable to contingency, but to deny him the ibenefit of said service for the purposes of qualifying service will be the case of invidious discrimination. Examples of persons employed on contract; daily wage and even work charge, whose continuous services followed by the regularisation has been held to count toward qualifying service, have been quoted to contend that since the contract, daily wage and work charge services of such employees have been held to qualify for pensionary benefits, there being no qualitative difference in the service rendered by Ranbir Singh as whole time worker, though paid from contingencies, than the services rendered by all above categories, the treatment given to the petitioner is discriminatory.

6. On the other hand, the main plank of the respondents to contest the claim of the petitioner is that the services rendered by Ranbir Singh as contingent paid worker cannot be counted towards qualifying service as per Rules 2, 13 and 14 of the Rules. It is contended that the Rules do not apply to persons paid from contingencies. Referhence has also been made to Rule 13 of the Rules to sghow that the qualifying service would commence from the idate government servant takes charge of the post to which he was first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. As per respondents, since, Ranbir Singh was being paid from contingency till 30.9.2003, such service has to be excluded from the qualifying service. Further reference has been made to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14, according to which, the expression service has been defined to mean a service under Gove