Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parikshit Bansal vs Union Of India And Others on 21 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147659
CM-1565-CWP-2023 -1- 2023:PHHC:147659
IN/AND CWP-20217-2022
118+261
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-1565-CWP-2023
IN/AND CWP-20217-2022
Date of Decision:21.11.2023
PARIKSHIT BANSAL ......... Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present : Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate
for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gosain, Senior Panel Counsel
for the respondents- UOI.
****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
CM-1565-CWP-2023
Application for placing on record additional documents, is
allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly
supported by affidavit. Said document is taken on record. Office to
append the same at appropriate place.
CM stands disposed of.
CWP-20217-2022
1. On 07.09.2022, the following order was passed:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the post on which the petitioner
was appointed (Annexure P-1) is a pensionable
post and appointment to which was only on
contractual basis, prior to 03.07.2014.
Whereafter NIPER had enforced the policy to
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147659
CM-1565-CWP-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:147659
IN/AND CWP-20217-2022
make appointment on regular basis as per
notification G.S.R. 433(E) dated 03.07.2014.
Learned counsel further submits that once the
past service rendered by the petitioner is
counted for the purpose of granting
retirement/terminal benefits with the services at
NIPER w.e.f 04.07.2004, as per office order
dated 18.10.2006 (Annexure P-3), the same has
also to be taken into reckoning for grant of
pension. It is also borne out from the record
that the contractual employment of the
petitioner was not extended beyond 31.03.2013.
Learned counsel to first address the Court
on the issue whether the appointment on
contractual basis would be pensionable or not
and refer to the relevant service rules in that
regard.
At this stage, Mr. Arun Gosain, Senior
Panel Counsel puts in appearance on behalf of
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and seeks short
accommodation to assist the Court on the above
issue(s).
On request, adjourned to 27.09.2022."
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per
judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in 'Sheela Devi Vs. State of
Himachal Pradesh and another' AIR Online 2019 HP 1162, the past
service as contractual employee cannot be considered for pension.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforecited
judgment stands overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sheela Devi
Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another' 2023 Livelaw SC 662.
4. Faced with this, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that matter may be disposed of in the light of judgment of Hon'ble
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147659
CM-1565-CWP-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:147659
IN/AND CWP-20217-2022
Supreme Court.
5. As per judgment of Supreme Court in Sheela Devi (supra),
the contractual service of the petitioner needs to be counted for the
purpose of pension.
6. In the light of judgment of Supreme Court in Sheela Devi
(supra), the present petition stands deserved to be allowed and
accordingly allowed. The needful shall be done within 6 months from
today.
( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
JUDGE
21.11.2023
Ali
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:147659
3 of 3
