and after abolition of the Tribunal, the matter
stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.189
of 2019, seeking the following relief:-
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:46484
"12 (a) That the Annexure P-4 may kindly be
quashed and set aside and the
respondents may kindly be directed to
allot the G.P.F. number to the present
petitioner."
2. Case set up by Learned Counsel for the
.
petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as Lecturer
in Economics and he joined as such in November 2005.
Grievance of the petitioner is that he deserves to be given
GPF Number, so as to permit him to subscribe to GPF
of
as per Rules.
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the State
rt
Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit, stating therein
that employees who were appointed to the post under
State Government after 14.05.2003 were to be governed
by CCS [Pension} Rules, 1972 and CCS [GPF] Rules,
1960 which were not be applied to them. Reply-Affidavit
indicates that GPF Numbers were allotted to those
incumbents who were appointed prior to 14.05.2003 and
since the petitioner was appointed after 14.05.2003
i.e. in October/November 2005, therefore, he does not
have any right to claim that he should be governed by
GPF Rules, 1960.
4. Heard, Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for
2025:HHC:46484
the petitioner; Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned State
Counsel, for Respondents No.1 and 3; and Mr. Lokendar
Paul Thakur, Learned Senior Panel Counsel, for
.
Respondent No.2.
5. At this stage, Learned Counsel, for the
petitioner, on Instructions, states that the State
Authorities have notified Old Pension Scheme, vide
of
Office Memorandum on 04.05.2003 [Taken on Record],
whereby, the benefit of pension has been revived, subject
rt
fulfilment of conditions contained in the said
Memorandum. Learned Counsel, for the petitioner,
further states that once Old Pension Scheme has been
revived, then, automatically CCS [GPF] Rules, 1960
ought to have been revived. In these circumstances,
Learned Counsel, for the petitioner, submits that he may
be permitted to approach the State Authorities, by way of
appropriate representation for asserting his claim for
pension and GPF [if permissible] retrospectively as per
norms, within a reasonable period.
6. Prayer so made, is not opposed by Learned
State Counsel and also by Learned Counsel for
Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, except to the
2025:HHC:46484
extent that even though the Old Pension Scheme has
been revived, yet, the benefit of revival to GPF is
not automatic and cannot be granted retrospectively.
.
7. Taking into the entirety of facts and
circumstances and the material placed on record
and the statement made by Learned Counsel for the
petitioner; and leaving all questions open, this Court
of
disposes of the instant petition, in the following terms:-
(i) As prayed, petitioner is permitted to make a
rt representation asserting the claim for revival
of pension under Old Pension Scheme to
Respondent No.3-Director of Education [now
re-named as Director of School Education]
to the Government of Himachal Pradesh,
within six weeks from today;
(ii) Needless to say that this Court has not
adverted to the rival claims and contentions
either qua Old Pension or for revival of GPF,
which shall be considered/examined by the
State Authorities hereinafter, in accordance
with law, after hearing the petitioner, within
the above period;
(iii) Needless to say that upon consideration, in
case, the claim for Old Pension or Revival of
GPF is accepted, the State Authorities shall
take steps for releasing the admissible
benefits, within two months thereafter; and
(iv) Costs made easy for respective parties.
2025:HHC:46484
In aforesaid terms, instant petition stands
disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any.
.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
December 31, 2025
[Bhardwaj]
of
rt
