Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Bhanu Dev Justa vs State Of H.P. And Ors on 16 September, 2023
Bench: Satyen Vaidya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. : 3094 of 2020
Decided on : 16.09.2023
.
Dr. Bhanu Dev Justa ....Petitioner.
Versus
State of H.P. and ors. ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K.
Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal,
Additional Advocate General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral)
By way of instant petition, petitioner has
prayed for following substantive relief :-
i) That Annexure P-3 may be quashed/set aside and
the respondents may be ordered to count entire
service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose
of pension and other retiral benefits and the
pension may be ordered to be worked out in
favour of the petitioner.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. Petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Medical
Officer in October, 2000, on contract basis. His contract
.
service continued till 01.10.2009 when he was
regularized. Petitioner superannuated from the service on
30.04.2015.
3. Petitioner raised demand for considering his
contract service as qualifying service for the purposes of
which forced
r to
pension. Respondents did not agree to such contention,
the petitioner to file Original Application
No. 3420 of 2017 before erstwhile State Administrative
Tribunal. The application of the petitioner was disposed
of with the direction to the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was
rejected, vide office order dated 18.06.2018. Thereafter,
petitioner again approached this Court by way of
instant petition.
4. Respondents are contesting the claim of the
petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner is not
entitled for benefit of qualifying service for the purposes
of pension as far as his contract services is concerned. It
is submitted that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, cannot
be applied to the contract service.
.
5. The facts are not in dispute. The services of
the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.10.2009 after
considering his entire contract service w.e.f. October,
2000.
6. The issue is no more res integra that the
contract service of the State Government employees is
eligible for being considered as qualifying service for the
purposes of pension provided the initial appointment of
the incumbent is in accordance with law. A Division
Bench of this Court in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled
Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. and ors., decided on
26.12.2019, held as under:-
"19. Once that be so, obviously no discrimination can be
made qua the employees, who rendered services prior
to regularisation in the capacity of contractual
employees and were regularised only because they had
put in the requisite number of years of service on
contractual basis like their counterparts who had
rendered services in the capacity of work charged
employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-
pensionable establishment, of course, for that matter
even on adhoc basis.
20. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find merit
in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed and
the services rendered by the husband of the petitioner
.
on contract basis prior to his regularisation shall be
treated as qualifying service for grant of pension. The
arrears of pension shall be confined to last three years
only before the date of filing of the petition i.e.
3.12.2018. The admissible benefits be paid accordingly
within three months from today. "
7. The above said judgment in Sheela Devi's case
has also been affirmed now by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, vide judgment dated 07.08.2023.
8. In view of the settled legal position as also
taking into consideration the facts of the case, no
exception can be carved out in the case of petitioner. The
contract service of the petitioner is liable to be counted
as qualifying service for the purposes of pension.
9. In result, Annexure P-3, dated 18.06.2018, is
quashed. Since the petitioner has been vigilant and has
made timely representation for his claim, he is held
entitled for all pensionary benefits from the date of his
retirement i.e. 30.04.2015 by taking into account his
entire contract service.
10. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also
the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
.
(Satyen Vaidya)
16th September, 2023 Judge
(sushma)
r to
