Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Kanwar Singh Thakur And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 20 June, 2023

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya

                                                    1




    IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                              CWP No.2501 of 2023
                                              Date of Decision : 20th June, 2023




                                                                                .

     Kanwar Singh Thakur and others
                                                                         ...... Petitioners
                                     Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh and another





                                                                         ......Respondents

    Coram:

    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
                                     1
    Whether approved for reporting? No


    For the Petitioners
                        r          : Mr. Devender K. Sharma, Advocate.

    For the Respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with
                          Mr. Yashwardhan Chauhan, Senior Additional
                          Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Sharma &
                          Ms. Sharmila Patiyal, Additional Advocates
                          General and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy


                          Advocate General.

    Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral)

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

"i) That the impugned acts of omission and commission of the respondent are highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

ii) That respondent department committed illegality in not counting the contractual service of the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:31:30 :::CIS 2

petitioner for the purpose of pension under rule 13 of CCS (Pension) rules.

iii) That the respondent department committed illegality in not counting the contractual service of .

the petitioners for the purpose of pension and increments. The respondent department has not considered the fact this Hon'ble High Court was well Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles in catena of case that contractual service followed by regularization is liable to be counted for the purpose of pension and for all consequential benefits. Hence the impugned action of the respondent department is contemptuous and liable to be set aside.

iv) That the classification made by the respondent department between regular and contractual service for the purpose of pension is irrational and is highly discriminatory not to count the contractual service on the basis of flimsy grounds.

v) That the respondent department has not considered the fact that the department has been benefited by the service of the petitioners in the heydays of his life on less salary on contractual basis and there is no reason and rhyme in not counting the contractual service of the petitioner in spite of the fact that the contractual service of the petitioner has been followed by regularization."

::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:31:30 :::CIS 3

2. The issue of contractual service to be counted for the purpose of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is the consideration before this Court in the instant petition.

.

3. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the number of judgments rendered by this Court, reference can be made to one of such judgments in CWP No.3841 of 2022, titled as Dr. Umesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, decided on 19.4.2023, in which, in Paragraph-12 it has been held as under:-

"In CWP No. 5400 of 2014, titled as Veena Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr., decided on 21.11.2014, a Division Bench of this Court had held that the contract service followed by regular appointment was required to be counted for the purpose of pension. Similarly in CWP No. 8953 of 2013, titled as Joga Singh & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 15.06.2015, the same proposition was reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court. In CWP No. 2384 of 2018, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Sh. Matwar Singh and Anr., decided on 18.12.2018, another Division Bench of this Court held even the work charge status followed by regular appointment to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purposes of pension and other retiral benefits."

4. Since the question as rendered in this petition has been authoritatively announced by holding that the contractual service of ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:31:30 :::CIS 4 an employee be counted towards the pension, the instant petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to count the contractual service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension without .

consequential benefits, if any, arising thereon.

5. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

                                              ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan )
                                                       Judge
                      r                          ( Satyen Vaidya)

    [                                                  Judge
    June 20, 2023 (KS)








                                              ::: Downloaded on - 23/06/2023 20:31:30 :::CIS