Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P. & Others vs Uttam Chand & Another on 7 December, 2018
Bench: Surya Kant, Ajay Mohan Goel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2882 of 2018
.
Decided on: 07.12.2018
State of H.P. & others ...Petitioners
Versus
Uttam Chand & another ....Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioners: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with
Mr.J.K. Verma and Mr.Aswhani Sharma,
r Additional Advocate Generals.
For the respondents: Mr.Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate, for
respondent No.1
Mr.Rajesh Sharma, ASGI, for respondent
No.2.
Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral)
The challenge laid in this writ petition is to the order dated 10th January, 2018, passed by the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.2904 of 2017, whereby the respondent's claim to count the work charge service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits has been accepted
2. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent joined the petitioners' Department as a Chainman on daily wages in the year 1992 at Kangra Division. He was subsequently conferred ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:57 :::HCHP 2 status of work charge employee w.e.f. 01.04.2002. His services were later on regularized vide office order dated 29 th June, 2007 .
(Annexure A-I). It appears that the respondent's claim for grant of pension was declined on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualifying service. It is in this backdrop that the respondent approached the Tribunal and his claim has been accepted.
3. It is by now well settled that the work charge status followed by regular appointment has to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Executive instructions, if any, issued by the Finance Department to the contrary, are liable to be ignored/struck down, in the light of view taken by this Court in CWP No.6167 of 2017, titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 6th March, 2013. A Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Keshar Chand vs. State of Punjab though the Secretary P.W.D. B& R Chandigarh and others, (1988) 94(2) PLR 223 also dealt with an identical issue where Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules excluded the work charge service for the purpose of qualifying service. Setting aside the said Rule being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the work charge service ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:57 :::HCHP 3 followed by regular appointment will count towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. The .
aforesaid view was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4. For the afore-stated reasons, we do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any.
( Surya Kant ), Chief Justice ( Ajay Mohan Goel ), Judge December 7, 2018 ( vt ) ::: Downloaded on - 10/12/2018 22:56:57 :::HCHP