While allowing the petition, Justice Satyen Vaidya held that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits and the same is a right that cannot be abridged by administrative actions.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner was a daily waged forest worker in the year 1993 and he was granted work charge status from 01.02.2023 from the order of this court. Then the services of the petitioner were regularised from 16.08.2007 and the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2016. the issue in the current petitioner is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the GPF scheme. The petitioner has contended that he is entitled to the benefit by considering his service on work charge for the purposes of applicability of the scheme. The respondent opposes the petitioner on the basis of the clarification issued by the Department of Finance.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court noted that in the first instance, the case of the petitioner for the grant of benefit of the GPF Scheme was recommended by the administrative department, later the said order was withdrawn on the basis of the clarification issued by the finance department which has been relied on by the respondents. The court then referred several cases and concluded that it is more than settled now that work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component for qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits.
With regards to the current case, the court noted that the petitioner was conferred work charge status on 01.02.2003 which was followed by his regularization on 16.08.2007. Therefore, the service of the petitioner as a work charge employee, followed by regular appointment makes him liable to be counted for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. It was further held that the petitioner had earned the status of work charge employee as a matter of right under the policy of the state government. The court further held that once the work charge employment of the petitioner is held liable to be counted for the grant of pensionary benefits to him, as a natural corollary, he will be governed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Contributory Pension Scheme will not be applicable to him.
With regards to the instructions issued by the finance department, the court held that the petitioner had earned the right to the arrears payable to him on account of service rendered by him on a work charge basis and such right cannot be abridged by administrative instructions.
The decision of the Court:
The petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to enroll the name of the petitioner to the GPF Scheme and to grant all the relevant reliefs.
Case Title: Ghindo Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Satyen Vaidya
Case no.: CWP No.:2414 of 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Gautam Sood, Mr. Rahul Thakur, and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals. : Mr. Rangil Singh, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No. 4.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
