SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9578

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
TARA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP/3971/2024



Petitioner Advocates:Ravi Kumar Patial Gopal Singh ,Respondent Advocate: AG Rajesh Kosh

##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.3971 of 2024

Date of Decision: 23.12.2025

_____________________________________________________________________

Tara Devi ……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Chitranjan Sharma & Mr. Gopal Singh,

Advocates.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,

Audditional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi

Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the

respondents-State.

Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent

No.5.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following main reliefs:-

“a. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued

thereby quashing the letter dated 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) and

respondent No.5 i.e. Principal, Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh,

Shimla be directed to reconsider the pension case of the petitioner in

accordance with the Government of India’s Decision No.(2) dated 14th

May, 1968, appended below Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972;

b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the

benefit of judgment dated 4.3.2010 passed in CWP(T) No.3603 of 2008,

titled as Mehar Chand Vs. State of HP and Others to her with all

consequential benefits.”

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:12:20 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the

pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that on

18.08.2000, petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier at

GPS Kasroa, Block Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. On

07.08.2009, petitioner was converted to Whole Time Contingent Paid

worker and in afore capacity, he joined at GMS Bhavran, District

Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh on 10.08.2009. On 13.05.2011, services

of the petitioner were regularizedt as Class-IV and he was given posting

at Block Elementary Education Office, Nadaun, District Hamirpur,

Himachal Pradesh. After his having rendered more than 21 years of

service, petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2021. Vide office

memorandum dated 04.05.2023, Government of Himachal Pradesh

issued instructions/Standard Operating Procedures for the

implementation of Old Pension Scheme, also known as Central Civil

Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, for the existing/retired employees, who

are/were covered under the National Pension Scheme. In terms of

aforesaid memorandum, petitioner, vide communication dated

18.11.2023, applied for Old Pension Scheme and deposited an amount

of Rs.2,31,519/-. However vide communication dated 26.03.2024,

respondent No.4 i.e. Principal, Accountant General, Himachal

Pradesh, returned the pension case with the observation that the

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 04:12:20 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

petitioner had not completed ten years of minimum service as per CCS

(Pension) Rules, 1972.

3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Chitranjan

Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that since,

besides rendering regular service of 9 years, 8 months and 18 days,

petitioner had worked as Whole Time Contingent Paid w.e.f

10.08.2009 till 12.05.2011, samte was also required to be taken into

consideration, while calculating the total qualifying service of the

petitioner. In support of his aforesaid claim, petitioner placed reliance

upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP

(T) No.3603 of 2008, titled as Mehar Chand Vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh & Others, wherein it came to be ruled that Whole Time

Contingent service is required to be counted towards qualifying

service. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this

Court in CWP No.9805 of 2025, titled as Ram Singh Vs. State of

Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein this Court, while relying upon

the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP

No.6688 of 2021, titled as Bimla De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top