Himachal Pradesh High Court
Tara Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors on 23 December, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3971 of 2024
Date of Decision: 23.12.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
.
Tara Devi .........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. .......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Chitranjan Sharma & Mr. Gopal Singh,
of
Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
rt Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the
respondents-State.
Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent
No.5.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:-
"a. That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued thereby quashing the letter dated 26.03.2024 (Annexure P-3) and respondent No.5 i.e. Principal, Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla be directed to reconsider the pension case of the petitioner in accordance with the Government of India's Decision No.(2) dated 14 th May, 1968, appended below Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972;
b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of judgment dated 4.3.2010 passed in CWP(T) No.3603 of 2008, titled as Mehar Chand Vs. State of HP and Others to her with all consequential benefits."::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 2
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that on 18.08.2000, petitioner was appointed as Part Time Water Carrier at .
GPS Kasroa, Block Nadaun, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. On 07.08.2009, petitioner was converted to Whole Time Contingent Paid worker and in afore capacity, he joined at GMS Bhavran, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh on 10.08.2009. On 13.05.2011, services of of the petitioner were regularized as Class-IV and he was given posting at Block Elementary Education Office, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, rt Himachal Pradesh. After his having rendered more than 21 years of service, petitioner superannuated on 31.01.2021. Vide office memorandum dated 04.05.2023, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued instructions/Standard Operating Procedures for the implementation of Old Pension Scheme, also known as Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, for the existing/retired employees, who are/were covered under the National Pension Scheme. In terms of aforesaid memorandum, petitioner, vide communication dated 18.11.2023, applied for Old Pension Scheme and deposited an amount of Rs.2,31,519/-. However vide communication dated 26.03.2024, respondent No.4 i.e. Principal, Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, returned the pension case with the observation that the ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 3 petitioner had not completed ten years of minimum service as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been .
highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Chitranjan Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that since, besides rendering regular service of 9 years, 8 months and 18 days, petitioner had worked as Whole Time Contingent Paid w.e.f of 10.08.2009 till 12.05.2011, same was also required to be taken into consideration, while calculating the total qualifying service of the rt petitioner. In support of his aforesaid claim, petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP (T) No.3603 of 2008, titled as Mehar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, wherein it came to be ruled that Whole Time Contingent service is required to be counted towards qualifying service. He also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.9805 of 2025, titled as Ram Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein this Court, while relying upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6688 of 2021, titled as Bimla Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others, held that Whole Time Contingent Paid service is also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing qualifying purpose.
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 44. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents-State as well as respondent No.5/Accountant General have filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have .
not been disputed, rather an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he has not completed ten years regular service as is required under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for grant of pension. Since it is not in dispute, rather it is an admitted of fact that besides petitioner's having rendered more than 9 years, 8 months and 18 days of regular service, he had also rendered service of rt Whole Time Contingent Paid w.e.f 10.08.2009 till 12.05.2011 i.e. one year and nine months, afore service is also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing qualifying service. If it is so, total regular service rendered by the petitioner would come out to 10 years and 7 months and in that eventuality, petitioner would be entitled to pension. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of relevant paras of judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mehar Chand (supra):-
"The petitioner has worked on contingent basis with effect from March, 1972 to November, 1986. He was regularised vide order dated 6.11.1986. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce Government of India's Decision No.(2), dated 14th May, 1968, appended below Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which reads thus:-
"(2) Counting half of the service paid from contingencies with regular service. - Under Article 368 of the CSRs (Rule14), periods of service paid from contingencies do not count as qualifying service for pension. In some cases, employees paid ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 5 from contingencies are employed in types of work requiring services of whole-time workers and are paid on monthly rates of pay or daily rates computed and paid on monthly basis and on being found fit brought on to regular establishment. The .
question whether in such cases service paid from contingencies should be allowed to count for pension and if so, to what extent has been considered in the National Council and in pursuance of the recommendations of the Council, it has been decided that half the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to count towards pension at the time of absorption in regular of employment subject to the following conditions, viz.:-
(a) Service paid from contingencies should have been in a job involving whole-time employment (and not part-
rt time for a portion of the day).
(b) Service paid from contingencies should be in a type of work on job for which regular posts could have been sanctioned, e.g., malis, chowkidars, khalasis, etc.
(c) The service should have been one for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which though nor analogous to the regular scale of pay should bear some relation in the matter of pay to those being paid for similar jobs being performed by staffs in regular establishments.
(d) The service paid from contingencies should have been continuous and followed by absorption in regular employment without a break.
(e) Subject to the above conditions being fulfilled, the weightage for past service paid from contingencies will be limited to the period after 1st January, 1961, for which authentic records of service may be available."::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 6
A bare perusal of Government of India's Decision No.(2) (supra), makes it abundantly clear that a person who has been paid out of contingencies funds and is not appointed as part-time, is entitled to get half the service counted for the purpose of pension. Petitioner has .
worked for 14 years on contingent basis. His 7 years service is required to be counted for the purpose of pension since his contingent appointment has been followed by regular appointment.
In view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Annexures A-5, dated 12th July, 1995 and A-8, dated 10th April, 1997 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider of the case of the petitioner for pension after counting half the service rendered by him on contingent basis as indicated hereinabove within a period of eight weeks from today. He shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on delayed retiral benefits. There shall, however, rt be no order as to costs."
5. It would also be apt to take note of relevant paras of judgment by this Court in Ram Singh (supra):-
"5. Careful perusal of aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, clearly reveals that petitioner initially served as PTWC w.e.f 04.06.1997 to 11.12.2006 i.e. 9 years, 3 months and 7 days and thereafter, he worked as WTCP w.e.f 12.12.2006 to 02.03.2009 i.e. 2 years, 2 months and 21 days. Services of the petitioner were regularized on 19.02.2009 and ultimately, he, after having rendered regular service of 8 years, 9 months and 9 days w.e.f 03.03.2009 to 31.12.2017, superannuated on his attaining the age of 58 years. Though in afore communication, respondents have claimed that benefit has been granted to the petitioner in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., Latest HLJ 2022 (HP) (1) 151, by Deputy Director, Higher Education Solan, but such stand does not appear to be correct for the reason that had respondents extended benefit of Baldev Singh's case to the petitioner, he would not have retired on 31.12.2017, rather ought to have been worked till 31.12.2019. Had ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 7 respondents, while giving benefit of Baldev Singh's case, permitted the petitioner to work till 31.12.2019, he would have completed his regular service of 10 years, 9 months and 9 days w.e.f 03.03.2009 to 31.12.2017 and in that eventuality, he would have become entitled for .
retiral benefits also. There is another aspect of the matter that services rendered by the petitioner as WTCP w.e.f 12.12.2006 to 02.03.2009 i.e. 2 years, 2 months and 21 days is also required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of qualifying purpose. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.6688 of 2021, titled as Bimla Devi Vs. State of H.P. & others, while placing reliance upon the various judgments of passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:
"15. By applying the principles laid down in Balo Devi, Sheela Devi and Sunder Singh (supra), the case of full-time workers rt paid from contingency cannot be distinguished merely because it falls in excluding clause of Rule 2. The first proviso to Rule 13 being a substantive provision will be read in the instant case in the similar manner as Rule 17 has been construed in Sheela Devi. The explanation has been carved out in the 1st proviso to Rule 13, as noticed above.
16. In Prem Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had struck down Rule 3 (8) of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and had also struck down regulation Civil Services Regulations of U.P., whereby the period of work charge service was excluded from computation of qualifying service for grant of pension. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the factual aspect as under:-
"33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularization had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 8 establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in Note to Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when .
it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or in-between temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule of 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be rt counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification.
34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non-discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularisation in the capacity of workcharged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non- pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment."::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 9
16. Applying the same principle, it can be seen that except for payment being made to Ranbir Singh from contingency, all other benefits taken into consideration in Prem Singh (supra), Balo Devi, Sheela Devi, Matwar Singh are found present.
.
Ranbir Singh had rendered continuous full-time service w.e.f.
14.2.2002 till 30.9.2003 and thereafter w.e.f. 1.10.2003, his services were regularized. Admittedly, it was not the case of fresh appointment given to Ranbir Singh w.e.f. 1.10.2003 on the substantive post of Class-IV as a result of some selection process. Undoubtedly, he was given the benefit of of regularization by considering his continuance in past service initially as part time contingent paid and w.e.f. 14.2.2002 as full time contingent paid worker. In this view of the matter, to rt ignore the service of Ranbir Singh as fulltime contingent worker w.e.f. 14.2.2002 will be travesty. He was paid on monthly basis and there was no break in his service after upgradation of his service as full time contingent paid worker. Thus, in my considered view, the ratio of judgment in Prem Singh (supra) applies to the facts of the case.
17. Once the full time contingent paid service of Ranbir Singh qualifies for pension, he completes ten years qualifying service. Simultaneously, his inclusion in terms of the CCS (Pension) Rules, as amended in the State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f.
15.5.2003 will not have relevance by application of first proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules."
6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed.
Respondents are directed to take into consideration half of the Whole Time Contingent Paid service rendered by the petitioner, while computing his qualifying service, which otherwise comes out to be 10 ::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS 10 years and 7 months and thereafter, grant pension. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that respondents shall prepare the case of the .
petitioner for pension and forwarded the same to the office of Accountant General within four weeks, who is further directed to issue Pension Payment Order within two weeks. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
of List for compliance on 20.03.2025.
December 23, 2025
(sunil)
rt (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 24/12/2025 20:34:02 :::CIS