Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P And Another vs Kesar Singh on 16 October, 2024
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Sushil Kukreja
( 2024:HHC:9873 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
LPA No. 102 of 2021
Decided on: 16th October, 2024
State of H.P and another
.......Appellants
Versus
Kesar Singh ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
For the appellants: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G
with Mr. Navlesh Verma, Addl.
A.G and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy. A.G.
For the respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Arun
Kaushal, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)
Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Writ
Court, the State has filed the instant appeal.
2. The issue in question relates to counting of two
years, 5 months and 12 days service rendered by the
respondent in the Defence Security Corps for the purpose of
computing qualifying service for grant of pension under CCS
(Pension), Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 ( 2024:HHC:9873 )
3. It is not in dispute that the respondent served in
the Indian Army w.e.f. 27.12.1969 to 09.09.1988. After
discharge from army, he had rendered his services in Defence
Security Corps w.e.f 18.06.1991 to 30th November, 1993.
Thereafter, he was appointed as Forest Guard in the Forest
Department on 06.07.2000 against the quota reserved for ex-
servicemen. He retired from the service on 28.02.2010 on
attaining the age of superannuation.
4. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) according
to the respondent-State had not completed the qualifying
service for grant of pension under the Rules, as such, pension
was not granted to him. This constrained the petitioner to
make a representation for counting his services rendered in
the Defence Security Corps towards the qualifying service for
the purpose of pension under the Rules, but that was
declined.
5. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner had filed
CWP No. 1220 of 2020, which has been allowed by the
learned Writ Court vide its judgment dated 06.10.2020, with
a direction to the respondents to grant benefit of service
rendered by the petitioner with the Defence Security Corps
for the purpose of counting the same towards qualifying
3 ( 2024:HHC:9873 )
service for the purpose of pension, in accordance with law
and Rules.
6. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Navlesh Verma,
learned Additional Advocate General that the findings
recorded by the learned Writ Court are absolutely wrong and
rather perverse inasmuch as the learned Writ Court has only
quoted Rule 19 and thereafter passed the judgment, without
considering various sub rules of Rule 19, which clearly
disentitle the petitioner for the grant of pension.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate
would contend that the findings recorded by the learned Writ
Court are absolutely in order and, therefore, warrant no
interference.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and have gone through the records.
9. It is not in dispute that the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, in quote letter No.4 has taken a
decision which provides as under:-
"(4) Counting of service in the case of Ex-DSC
personnel.- It has been decided that Ex-Defence
Security Corps personnel on their re-employment
in any civil post will be permitted to count in full
4 ( 2024:HHC:9873 )
of the former service rendered by them in the
Defence Security Corps for the purpose of pension
and gratuity."
10. The aforesaid instructions clearly and
unequivocally provides that Ex-Defence Security Corps
personnel on their re-employment to any civil post will be
permitted to count in full of the former service rendered by
them in the Defence Security Corps for the purpose of
pension and gratuity.
11. Once that be so, obviously, there was no occasion
for the appellant-State to feel aggrieved. As a matter of fact,
this was precisely the opinion even rendered by the Law
Department, which for some strange reasons, was not
adhered to by the State and the appellant-State, in its
wisdom, has chosen to follow the advice of the Finance
(Pension Department), which Department is not even expert
on the subject of law. It would have been proper or rather
more appropriate for the State to have gone by the advice of
the Law Department, which is expert on the subject, rather
than, filing this frivolous appeal.
12. In normal circumstances, this case would have
been a fit case for imposing costs on the State, but only on
5 ( 2024:HHC:9873 )
account of the persuasive submissions made by learned
Additional Advocate General, we are not imposing such costs.
13. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we
find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is
accordingly dismissed, so also the pending applications, if
any.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
Judge
October 16, 2024 ( Sushil Kukreja )
(naveen) Judge
