Himachal Pradesh High Court
Smt. Meera Mandhotra vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh And ... on 30 December, 2022
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3206 of 2020
Decided on: 30.12.2022
.
Smt. Meera Mandhotra ....Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
For the respondents: M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur and Arvind
Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for
the following relief:-
"(i) A writ in the nature of mandamus may
kindly be issued directing the respondents to count
the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f.
20.4.1988 to 8.7.2004 as qualifying service for the
purpose of pension to the petitioner as per CCS
Pension Rules, 1972 and also to hold the petitioner
entitled to subscription of GPF, in the interest of
justice."
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Junior
Basic Teacher (JBT) on 20.04.1988 on ad hoc basis and subsequently her
services were regularized as such w.e.f. 08.07.2004. According to the
.
petitioner, she served the respondents w.e.f. 20.04.1988 to 08.07.2004
without any interruption or break. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that in terms of the law as has been declared by the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others, LPA
No. 36 of 2010, decided on 15th July, 2010, ends of justice will be served in
case this petition is disposed of with the direction that the ad hoc service
which has been rendered by the petitioner before her services were
regularized as Junior Basic Teacher be also taken in to consideration for the
purpose of pension.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the request
made by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that as the services of the
petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 08.07.2004, therefore, she is not entitled
for pensionary benefits and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents on record as
also the judgment, dated 15th July, 2010, passed by the Hon'ble Division
Bench in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. and
others, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner at least is
entitled for issuance of a direction to the respondents that service rendered
by her on ad hoc basis be also treated as qualifying service for the purpose
of pension. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled for pension is not being
adjudicated by this Court, but in case she is entitled for any post
superannuation relief which is dependent upon the number of years of
service put in by the petitioner, then, obviously the period of ad hoc service
.
should also come to her assistance.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction
that the services rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis as a Junior
Basic Teacher, i.e., w.e.f. 20.04.1988 to 08.07.2004 be also treated as
qualifying service for the purpose of pension or for any post superannuation
benefits that she may be entitled to, which are based upon the length of
service rendered by the petitioner with the respondent-Department.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
December 30, 2022
(bhupender)
