IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA Nos.929 & 930 of 2025

Decided on: 31st December, 2025

1. LPA No.929 of 2025

The State Election Commission ...Appellant

versus

Rameshwar Lal and others ...Respondents

2. LPA No.930 of 2025

The State Election Commissiotn ...Appellant

uversus

Ghanshyam Chauhan and others ...Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S.Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Theh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the appellants: Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate

in both the appeals.

For the respondents: Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate for

respondent No.1 in LPA No.929

of 2025.

Mr.Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 in LPA No.929 of 2025 and for respondent No.4 in LPA No.930

of 2025.

Mr. B. Nandan Vashisth, Advocate for respondent No.1

in LPA No.930 of 2025.

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Mr.Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General .for respondent-State. P Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 13.09.2024 passed in two writ petitions being CWP No. 3496 of 2020 and CWPoOA No.135 of 2019 filed respectively by the petitioners/re spondent No.1.

2. Since the questrions of law and facts are same in both appeals, hence they are taken up together for hearing and being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondent No.1 in both the appeals, hereinafter referred as writ petitioners were earlier appointed in different organizations, however, their services were taken over by the appellant- Commission initially on secondment basis against the posts of Personal Assistant and thereafter were absorbed by the common office order dated 31.05.2004, passed by the appellant-Commission.

4. The details of their appointments in the parent department and thereafter taking over their services by the appellant-Commission are mentioned in the tabulated form as under:-

5. Both the writ-petitioners hafve now been retired from service, but they were denied the benefit of pension under the Old Pension Schemte as the services rendered by them in the parent department were not considered for the reason that as per the appellant-Commission after issuance of Notification dated 15.05.2003, the employees who were regularized after this date, are not entitled for pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1972, hereinafter to be referred as Pension Rules, 1972. Since the services of the writ petitioners were regularized on permanent basis with the appellant-Commission on 31.01.2004, they were held not entitled for pensionary benefits.

6. The State Government has framed the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006 (for short “2006 Rules”) under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which were notified on 17.08.2006. As per these Rules, the persons who were employed in the State after 15.05.2003 would be covered under the 2006 Rules (NPS) and the Pension Rules were made inapplicable to all appoiPntments made in the State of Himachal Pradesh on or after 15.05.2003 and since the services of the writ-petitioners were absorbed in the appellant-Commission on 31.05.2004 i.e. admittedly, after 15.05.2003, theyo were held not entitled to the benefit of Pension Rules, 197 2.

7. Both the writ-pretitioners instituted writ petitions claiming therein that once as per common office order dated 31.05.2004 issued by the appellant-Commission, their services have been ordered to be absorbed w.e.f. 01.06.2004 (F.N.), subject to certain conditions, then in that case, the past services rendered by them will be considered for all purposes. The relevant conditions of office order dated

31.05.2004 are reproduced hereunder:-

“5) They will have to deposit employer’s share of CPF into the Government Account and employees share into GPF Account with interest thereon out of the total amount at credits in their respective CPF accounts.

6) They will deposit all terminal benefit