Himachal Pradesh High Court
Chanchla Devi vs . State Of H.P. & Ors. on 13 June, 2023
Author: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Bench: Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Chanchla Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
Ex. Pet. No.76 of 2019 .
13.06.2023 Present: Mr. A.K. Gupta and Ms. Babita, Advocates, for the petitioner.
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta and Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No.4.
2. Heard.
O.A.(D)
r to
No.396 of 2018 instituted
petitioner was decided by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh by the Administrative Tribunal on 21.11.2018, directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 (Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), decided on 8th March, 2018.
The petitioner has filed the instant execution petition complaining non-implementation of the aforesaid judgment.
3. On 03.05.2023, the respondents had placed on record the instructions dated 01.05.2023, issued from the office of Executive Engineer, Chowari Division, HPPWD Chowari, gist of which runs as under:-
"In this behalf it is respectfully submitted that the directions as passed by Hon'ble High Court has been complied with through detailed speaking order dated 01.5.2023. The copy of speaking order is enclosed. In this case, the husband of petitioner late Sh. Mohal Singh was initially engaged in respondent department as daily wage beldar in the year 1986. The deceased husband of petitioner had worked w.e.f. year, 1986 to 31.12.1995. The deceased husband of petitioner was granted work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.1996 upon completion of 10 ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:34:44 :::CIS years of service. The deceased husband of petitioner was retired from service on 31.7.2003 upon attaining the .
age of 60 years. Thus he rendered 7 years and 7 months regular service upto his retirement. Since in the above titled execution petition, the Hon'ble Court has directed the respondents to consider the claim of petitioner in view of Sunder Singh case judgment, as such the respondents have examined the claim of petitioner. The deceased husband of petitioner has rendered 7 years and 7 months regular service. By giving the benefit of Sunder Singh case judgment, the deceased husband of petitioner becomes complete 9 years and 7 months regular service which is less than 9 years and 9 months regular service as per CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Therefore, in view of this position, the claim of petitioner has been considered and rejected through detailed speaking order. The payment of DCRG of the petitioner has been credited in the account of petitioner by this office on dated 21-04-2023 amounting Rs.19857/- (Rupees Nineteen thousand Eight Hundred Fifty seven Only)."
4. It is not in dispute that while deciding Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 (Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others) on 18.07.2022, the Hon'ble Apex Court has further clarified the judgment rendered in Sunder Singh's case, supra. In terms of the decision dated 18.07.2022 rendered in Balo Devi's case, it was held as under:-
"The intent of this Court was quite clear that:-
(a) The services rendered as a regular employee may first be computed.
(b) To the service as rendered to above, the component at the rate of one year of regular service for every five years of service as a daily wager, be added.
(c) If both the components as detailed in Paras a & b hereinabove, take the length of service to a level of more than eight years but less than ten years, in terms of last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Order, the services shall be reckoned as ten years."
The stand now taken by the respondents in the afore-extracted instructions that even 'by giving the benefit of ::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:34:44 :::CIS judgment in Sunder Singh's case, the deceased husband of .
the petitioner had completed only nine years and seven months of regular service, which is less than the required nine years and nine months of regular service for eligibility under the CCS (Pension) Rules', does not appear to be in consonance with the judgment in Balo Devi's case, supra.
Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed on record the instructions of the respondents dated 11.05.2023 and submitted that the decision in Balo Devi's case should not be taken into consideration as the State has filed a review petition against the same, which is pending adjudication. This submission cannot be accepted at this stage. The judgment in Balo Devi's case has not been stayed.
It continues to be in operation and admittedly stands implemented not only in the case of Balo Devi, but in various other similar cases as well.
Before proceeding further in the matter, at the request of learned Additional Advocate General, two weeks' further time is granted to the respondents to implement the judgment in question in letter and spirit.
List the matter on 03.07.2023. It is clarified that in case the judgment in question is not implemented by the next date, appropriate order shall be passed in the matter.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
June 13, 2023 Judge
Mukesh
::: Downloaded on - 13/06/2023 20:34:44 :::CIS