Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Dr. Sunil Sharma vs State Of H.P And Others on 25 February, 2020

Author: Sureshwar Thakur

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                        SHIMLA




                                                                                .

                                                           CWPOA No. 3108 of 2019
                                                           Decided on : 25.2.2020





    Dr. Sunil Sharma                                                                  ...Petitioner.
                                         Versus
    State of H.P and others                                                         ...Respondents.
    Coram:



    Whether approved for reporting?1
                           r                 to
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
                                                        Yes.

    For the Petitioner:                  Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate.

    For the respondents:                 Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocate
                                         General with Mr. Hemanshu Mishra,


                                         Additional Advocate General and Mr.
                                         Gaurav     Sharma,    Deputy     Advocate
                                         General for respondents No. 1 to 3.




               Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)

The petitioner becoming aggrieved, by, the making of Annexure A­3, wherethrough he was denied pensionary benefits, has, hence instituted the instant petition before this Court, wherethroughs he casts an onslaught thereon. Initially the petitioner was appointed, as, a Medical Officer on, a contract basis.

His afore appointment, on a contract basis, was made on 27.5.2000.

Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

...2...

However, his services became regularized, in, the afore capacity, in, .

the year 2007.

2. Mr. Hemanshu Mishra, learned Additional Advocate General, has, made strenuous efforts to validate the afore impugned Annexure, however, his attempt is feeble, and, is squarely benumbed by a decision rendered by this Court, in, a case titled as Joga Singh and others versus State of H.P and others and connected matters, reported in 2015(3) Him.L.R (DB) 1611, relevant paragraph 11 whereof, stands extracted hereinafter, (a) wherein it has been firmly expostulated, hence, upon making, an, interpretation of rule 13, of, the Central Civil Services (pension) Rules 1972, encapsulating therein, the, definition of qualifying service, vis­a­vis, entitlements towards pension (b) qua the period(s) of service rendered prior to 15.5.2003 whether on, a, contractual, temporary or adhoc capacity by, the appointee concerned, under, the government concerned, when becomes succeeded by regularization thereons, (c) thereupon the afore preceding uninterrupted period(s) of afore service(s) vis­a­vis regularization, stand declared, to, become reckonable as qualifying service, and, the appointee becomes declared, to, be entitled to ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2020 20:23:51 :::HCHP ...3...

receive pension. Since in tandem therewith the petitioner, though, .

was initially appointed, on, a contractual basis prior, to, 2003, yet, when he rendered uninterrupted service, in, the afore capacity, up to, his regularization in the year 2007, hence obviously he becomes entitled, to, the ratio propounded, in, the afore judgment, moreso, when it has become affirmed, by, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 22298/2015, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Joga Singh and ors.

11. According to rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. In the instant case, petitioners have been appointed by the State Government as per the norms laid down though initially for a period of one year, but their appoints were continued from the year 2000 followed by their appointments on substantive post on 31.10.2007 and 22.11.2007. The service on contract can also be counted under rule 17, which is subsequently followed by substantive appointment in a pensionable establishment. The status of the petitioners was better of than the persons appointed merely on contract basis since they ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2020 20:23:51 :::HCHP ...4...

have continuously worked for a period of 7 years without .

any obstruction and obtained essential qualification of one year condensed teacher training course."

3. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed alongwith all consequential benefits, and, the impugned Annexure A­3 is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

    25th February, 2020                             ( Sureshwar Thakur ),
    (priti)                                                Judge.










                                             ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2020 20:23:51 :::HCHP