Himachal Pradesh High Court
Subhash Chand & Ors vs State Of H.P. & Others on 24 October, 2024
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
( 2024:HHC:10209 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 11868/2024
Decided on: 24.10.2024
Subhash Chand & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. & others ....Respondents.
...........................................................................................
Coram
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. Devender K. Sharma Advocate.
For respondents. : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate
General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is heard at this stage.
2. In view of settled legal position viz-a-viz, the facts of
the case as have been admitted by the respondents in different
orders passed by them, there is no necessity for calling of the reply
from the respondents.
3. Following becomes apparent from the case file:-
3(i) The petitioners preferred writ petition bearing CWP No.
7523/2023 (Subhash Chand & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.)
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
( 2024:HHC:10209 )
seeking direction to the respondents to count the contractual
service rendered by them before regularization for the purpose of
pension and increments. Relief was prayed in light of the decisions
rendered in Jagdish Chand Vs. State of H.P. & Ors alongwith
connected matters.2. and in Oma Wati & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. &
Ors.3.
3(ii) Subhash Chand & Ors. was disposed of on 10.10.2023
with direction to the respondents to decide the case of the
petitioners in light of Jagdish Chand2 & Om Wati3 within four
weeks.
3(iv) The respondents considered the case of the petitioners
in light of Jagdish Chand2 & Om Wati3 vide order dated
27.08.2024. Petitioners' claim was allowed, though, consequential
benefits were restricted to three years prior to their filing the writ
petition. The petitioners were satisfied with this order.
4. Petitioner's grievance in this petition is to the
subsequent order passed by the respondents on 07.10.2024. In
terms of this order, contractual service rendered by the petitioners
against the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) was ordered to
be counted only for the purpose of pensionary benefits under the
Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules 1972. The petitioners were not
CWP No. 2411/2019 decided on 10.01.2020. SLP(C) No.8012-8013/2021
decided on 07.08.2023
CWPOA No. 5507/2020 decided on 21.08.2023
( 2024:HHC:10209 )
held entitled to count the contractual services rendered by them for
the purpose of increments. The order has been passed on the basis
of a decision rendered in Bant Ram & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. &
Ors.4.
In the said decision, it was observed that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in State of H.P. & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi5 held that the
past service of a contractual employee can only be taken into
account for the purpose of pension.
Significantly, the respondents while passing the
impugned order dated 07.10.2024 had not withdrawn the previous
order passed by them on 27.08.2024. In the order dated
27.08.2024, contractual service rendered by the petitioners had
been counted not only for the purpose of pension but also for the
purpose of grant of increments. Without hearing the petitioners, the
respondent/competent authority of its own accord passed a
subsequent order on 07.10.2024, now holding that contractual
service rendered by the petitioners would be counted only for the
purpose of pensionary benefits. The reason given in the impugned
order does not survive as on date. The decision rendered in Bant
Ram's4 case has been set aside by the Division Bench in Bant
Ram & Ors. Vs. State of H.P & Ors. 6 In the said decision, after
CWP No.6737/2021 decided on 13.05.2024
SLP(C) No. 10399/2020 decided on 07.08.2023
LPA No. 245/2024 decided on 05.09.2024.
( 2024:HHC:10209 )
considering several pronouncements in the time line on the subject
matter including the decision in Jagdish Chand's2 case, it was held
that contractual service would be counted not only for pensionary
benefits but also for grant of annual increments. The very basis for
passing the subsequent order by the respondents on 07.10.2024 is
not in existence now. The settled law is that the contractual service
is required to be counted not only for the purpose of pension under
the CCS Pension Rules 1972 but also for the grant of annual
increments. All these precedents have been noticed in Hans Raj &
Ors. Vs State of H.P. & Ors.7.
5. In view of above, impugned order dated 07.10.2024
(Annexure P-7) cannot be sustained. This writ petition is, therefore,
allowed. Order dated 07.10.2024 impugned herein is quashed and
set aside. Respondents are directed to implement the order dated
27.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) whereby the contractual service
rendered by the petitioners had been taken into consideration for
the purpose of pension as well as for increments.
The writ petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge
24th October, 2024
(rohit)
CWP No. 10910/2024, decided on 21.10.2024
