Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shobhni Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors on 1 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No. : 5137 of 2020
Reserved on: 20.03.2025
Decided on : 01.04.2025
Shobhni Devi. ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the petitioner : Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel,
Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi,
Additional Advocate General.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
By way of instant petition, petitioner has
prayed for following substantive reliefs: -
(a) That the impugned action of the
respondent whereby the petitioner has
been retired at the age of 58 years may
be held illegal. The petitioner may be
held entitled from retirement on
31.12.2019 instead of 31.12.2017 in
terms of judgment passed in CWP No.
2711 of 2017 with all the consequential
benefits in terms of the judgment;
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
( 2025:HHC:8539-DB )
(b) That the respondent department may
be directed to count half of the
contingent paid service of the petitioner
w.e.f. 25.08.2008 to 15.07.2010
towards qualifying service. By applying
the instructions issued by the
Government, the petitioner shall be
having qualifying service of ten years
and four months and the petitioner may
be held entitled to receive pension and
other terminal benefits in terms of the
CCS (CCA) pension Rules.
(c) That the petitioner may be held entitled
to receive the terminal benefits as per
the pension scheme applicable to the
government employees prior to the year
2003.
2. The facts, as are relevant for adjudication
of the instant petition and as have emerged from the
pleadings of the parties, documents filed on the file
and instructions placed by respondents on record, are
that the petitioner was engaged as part time Water
Carrier in the respondents/Department w.e.f.
29.07.1997 and continued to work in the same
capacity till 13.07.2008. The services of the petitioner
were brought as whole time contingent paid worker
w.e.f. 14.07.2008. Petitioner continued in the same
capacity till 16.07.2010. The services of the petitioner
were regularized as Class-IV employee w.e.f.
( 2025:HHC:8539-DB )
17.07.2020. petitioner retired at the age of 58 years
on 31.12.2017.
3. Since, the petitioner was not granted
pensionary benefits after her retirement, the
petitioner approached erstwhile State Administrative
Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 5133 of 2018 with
following prayers:-
"(i) That the impugned action of the
respondent whereby the applicant has
been retired at the age of 58 years may
be held illegal. The applicant may be
ordered to be reinstated in service and
allowed to continue in service till she
attains the age of 60 years, in terms of
notification dated 21.02.2018.
(ii That in case the applicant is not
reinstated in service the applicant may
be held entitled to receive the salary and
other monetary benefits from the date of
her retirement i.e. 31.12.2018 till the age
of 60 years.
(iii) That the applicant may be held entitled
to receive the terminal benefits as per
the pension scheme applicable to the
Government employees prior to the year
2003."
( 2025:HHC:8539-DB )
4. The O.A. No. 5133 of 2018 filed by the
petitioner was transferred to this Court after
abolition of State Administrative Tribunal and is
registered as CWPOA No. 5137 of 2020 i.e. the instant
petition.
5. Petitioner amended the petition and the
prayers made thereafter in the petition have already
been noticed above.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that
despite completion of qualifying service under CCS
(CCA) Pension Rules, the respondents have denied her
pensionary benefits. Petitioner submits that she has
completed regular service for a period of seven years
five months and fifteen days. Petitioner also claims to
be entitled to additional period of two years in terms
of the notification dated 21.02.2018, issued by the
State Government, whereby FR 56 has been amended
as under:-
"In rule-56 of the Fundamental Rules,
after the second proviso to clause (e), the
following third proviso shall be inserted,
namely:-
"Provided further that a Class IV
Government servant appointed on part
( 2025:HHC:8539-DB )
time/daily wages basis prior to 10.05.2001
and regularized on or after 10.05.2001 shall
retire from service on the afternoon of the last
day of the month in which he attains the age
of 60 years.".
7. Petitioner by amending the petition has
pleaded that the benefits of aforesaid notification
dated 21.02.2018 will be available to petitioner also
in terms of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Full
Bench of this Court on 22.02.2022 in CWP No. 2711
of 2017, titled as Baldev Singh Vs. State of H.P. and
Ors. In addition, petitioner also claims to be entitled
for addition of another period of one year i.e. 50% of
the service as whole time contingent paid worker.
8. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed reply to
O.A. No. 5133 of 2018. Respondents defended their
action to retire the petitioner at the age of 58 years
by placing reliance on notification published in
Rajpatra, dated 11.05.2001. According to
respondents, by way of notification dated 10.05.2001
all those Class IV employees, who were appointed on
or after said date i.e. 01.05.2001, were to retire at
the age of 58 years. It was stated that since, the
( 2025:HHC:8539-DB )
petitioner had retired on 31.12.2017 i.e. before
issuance of subsequent notification dated
21.02.2018, the said notification was to apply
prospectively and petitioner was not entitled to its
benefit.
9. After the amendment of the petition
despite repeated opportunities, respondents No. 1
and 2 have not filed any reply. It is only the
respondent No. 3 i.e. Deputy Director of Elementary
Education, who has filed a short reply dated
30.08.2024. He has stated that since the grievance
of the petitioner pertained to Deputy Director of
Higher Education and Director of Higher Education,
the said officers had nothing to say in the matter.
Thus, eventually, the averments made in the
amended petition have remained uncontroverted.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the
parties and have also gone through the record.
11. During the proceedings of the case, a
communication dated 07.03.2025, issued by the
Deputy Director of Higher Education, Shimla, H.P. to
the Director of Higher Education, Shimla, in the
( 2025:HHC:8539-DB )
context of the case of the petitioner has been placed
on record. The contents of aforesaid communication
reveal an admission of the fact that the petitioner
had been granted the benefit of judgment passed by
Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2711 of
2017, titled as Baldev Singh Vs. State of H.P. and
Ors. and she had also been allowed the benefit of
50% of the service rendered by petitioner as whole
time contingent paid. Thus, the total qualifying
service of the petitioner has been calculated at ten
years five months and sixteen days.
12. Still, the respondents have not granted
the pensionary benefits to the petitioner.
13. The communication dated 07.03.2025,
referred hereinabove, further mentioned that the
petitioner had not exercised option for opting for the
Old Pension Scheme (OPS) in compliance to
Government Notification dated 04.05.2023 and for
such reason her case was not liable to be considered
for granting of pensionary benefits under CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1972. At the time of hearing also, learned
State counsel raised the same contention.
( 2025:HHC:8539-DB )
14. It is the admitted case of the
respondents now that the petitioner has completed
qualifying service as required under CCS (CCA)
pension Rules, for making her eligible for grant of
pension under the said rules. The only ground
raised by the respondents to deny the petitioner
benefit of aforesaid rules is her alleged omission to
submit option in terms of the government
notification dated 04.05.2023.
15. There is nothing on record that
petitioner was being considered for National
Pension Scheme (NPS) or the petitioner had been
enrolled or registered under the said scheme at any
point of time. It is also not shown by the
respondents that the petitioner has received any
benefit under NPS. That being so, the Government
Notification dated 04.05.2023, cannot be used to the
detriment of petitioner as the option required
thereunder was to be exercised by the retired
employees who were covered under the NPS. Even
otherwise, petitioner had availed the legal remedy
immediately after her retirement in the year 2018
( 2025:HHC:8539-DB )
by filing O.A No. 5133 of 2018. In such view of the
matter also, since the matter raised by the petitioner
was sub-judice she had valid reasons to have
omitted to make option in terms of the Government
Notification dated 04.05.2023.
16. In view of above discussion, this Court
is of the considered view that the respondents have
withheld the pensionary benefits to the petitioner
without any legitimate reason.
17. In result, the petition is allowed.
Respondents are directed to grant the pensionary
benefits to the petitioner in accordance with CCS
(CCA) Pension Rules, 1972, from the date of her
retirement i.e. 01.01.2018. Petitioner shall also be
entitled to all consequential benefits as she had
taken recourse to her legal remedy with sufficient
promptitude.
18. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of,
in aforesaid terms, so also the pending
miscellaneous application, if any.
(Satyen Vaidya)
1st April, 2025 Judge
(sushma)
