Himachal Pradesh High Court
Rajeev Singh vs State Of H.P. And Others on 20 October, 2021
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 20th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION)
No. 1807 of 2019
Between:-
1. RAJEEV SINGH, S/O SHRI
HARI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE
DETHWA, POST OFFICE ARSU,
TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P., PRESENTLY
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
DEVELOPMENT
r BLOCK
OFFICE, NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P.
2. BALBIR SINGH, S/O SHRI
PRITAM SINGH, R/O VILLAGE
RUINI, POST OFFICE BUINI,
TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P., PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P.
3. ANIL KUMAR, S/O SHRI
ARGAIN BODH, R/O VILLAGE
PATILI KUHAL, POST OFFICE
PATILI KUHAL, TEHSIL
MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU,
H.P. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE KULLU, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P.
4. JASVEER SINGH, S/O SHRI
SUNDER LAL, R/O VILLAGE
KASHOLI, POST OFFICE
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:27 :::CIS
2
POSHNA, TEHSIL NIRMAND,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.,
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
.
NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,
H.P.
5. PROMILA KUMARI, W/O SHRI
PURAN CHAND, R/O VILLAGE
NAYA DHORTA, PO NIRMAND,
TEHSIL NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P., PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY, DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P.
6. DINESH KUMAR, S/O SHRI
MANGAL CHAND, R/O
VILLAGE THOLAND, PO
MALANG, TEHSIL KELONG,
DISTRICT LAHAUL AND SPITI,
PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
OFFICE, KULLU, H.P.
7. KARMA CHERING, S/O SHRI
SIRI RAM, R/O VILLAGE
MANALI, POST OFFICE
MANALI, DISTRICT KULLU,
H.P. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE, NAGGAR, KULLU, H.P.
8. BALWANT SINGH, S/O SHRI
KHARSHI RAM, R/O VILLAGE
ADSHI, PO NITHER, TEHSIL
NIRMAND, DISTRICT KULLU,
H.P., PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,
BLOCK DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE, NIRMAND, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P.
9. ARTI SHARMA, D/O SHRI
NIRONTAM DASS, R/O
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:27 :::CIS
3
VILLAGE CHOWKI AKHARA
BAZAAR, PO AKHARA
BAZAAR, KULLU, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P. PANCHAYAT
.
SECRETARY, BLOCK
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
NAGGAR, TEHSIL MANALI,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.
10. PAWAN KUMAR, S/O SHRI
MEHAR DASS, R/O VILLAGE
KUNDAKOO, POST OFFICE
JADOLI, TEHSIL NIRMAND,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.,
PRESENTLY PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY, BLOCK
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
NIRMAND KULLU, H.P.
11. NAROTAM DASS, S/O SHRI
CHHAJU RAM, R/O VILLAGE
BURUA, POST OFFICE BURUA,
TEHSIL MANALI, DISTRICT
KULLU, H.P., PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY, BLOCK
DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
NAGGAR, TEHSIL MANALI,
DISTRICT KULLU, H.P.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI KARAN SINGH PARMAR,
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY (RURAL) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR (RURAL)
DEVELOPMENT, HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA-2, H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:27 :::CIS
4
3. SECRETARY (FINANCE) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL
PRADESH, SHIMLA.
...RESPONDENTS
.
(BY SHRI ASHOK SHARMA,
ADVOCATE GENERAL, WITH M/S
ADARSH SHARAMA & SANJEEV
SOOD, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE
GENERALS & MR. KAMAL KANT
CHANDEL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE
GENERAL.
Whether approved for reporting? No.
__________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed
the following:
r to
JUDGMENT
By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i) That the action of the respondents to apply notification dated 17.08.2006 in case of petitioners be held illegal and void abinitio and petitioner may be held entitled for retiral benefits under Pension Rules, 1972. Respondents may be directed to allow petitioners to subscribe towards GPF without insisting them to subscribe towards Contributory Pension Scheme under the impugned Scheme. Further during the pendency of the petition if any action is taken by the department to the detriment of the petitioners, they may be quashed and set aside and petitioners may be held entitled for the benefits under Pension Rules, 1972.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:27 :::CIS 5(ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay salary and allowances to the petitioners for the period of training of six months of initial training with .
all consequential benefits."
2. When this case was taken up for consideration on 07.10.2021, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court, dated 21.02.2011, passed in CWP-T No. 2145 of 2008, titled as Mandeep Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others alongwith other connected matters had submitted that the prayer of the petitioners is squarely covered by the said judgment, which stood upheld in appeal by the Hon'ble Division Bench also in LPA No. 480 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. and others Vs. Mandeep Kumar, decided on 30.10.2020 alongwith other connected matters.
3. In this background, on the last date of hearing, this Court had passed the following order:
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no rejoinder is intended to be filed.
When the case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners informed the Court that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in CWP-T No. 2145 of 2008, titled as Mandeep Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. and other connected matters, which judgment stands affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal also.::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:27 :::CIS 6
Learned Additional Advocate General submits that he may be granted a week's time to ascertain this fact.
.
List on 20.10.2021, as prayed for."
4. Today, learned Additional Advocate General submits that it will be in the interest of justice in case appropriate orders are passed on merit in the case.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The case of the petitioners is in a very narrow compass.
According to the petitioners, they responded to an Advertisement issued by the respondent-Department for filling up the posts of Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari (Class-III posts), which were notified vide Advertisement No. 03/2000 (Annexure P-2). They participated in the interviews which were held for recruitment to the posts in issue by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur on 02.11.2001. They successfully cleared the recruitment process and accordingly, their names were recommended for appointment against the posts in issue. Thereafter, they were offered appointments as Gram Panchayat & Vikas Adhikari vide order(s) dated 24.07.2002. They joined as such and were sent for training. In the month of November, 2004, the petitioners were called upon to give their options for appointment in the ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:27 :::CIS 7 respective Districts and after obtaining such options from the petitioners, they were posted at the places opted by them in the year, 2005.
.
7. The grievance of the petitioners is that simply on the basis of their postings at the places of their appointment in the year 2005, they are treated as employees who are not entitled for grant of pension, whereas because they participated in the recruitment process and were selected for appointment against the posts in issue before 15.05.2003, i.e., at the time when Government job in the State of Himachal Pradesh was pensionable, therefore, they are entitled for pension. It is in this background that the petition has been filed with the prayers already enumerated hereinabove.
8. This issue, indeed, is no more res integra and the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment, dated 21.02.2011, passed in CWP-T No. 2145 of 2008, titled as Mandeep Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others alongwith other connected matters has held that the services of such like candidates will be deemed to have commenced from the date when they were issued the letters of appointment, prior to the commencement of their training. The findings so returned by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate in the said judgment were assailed by the State by way of a Letters Patent Appeal and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the appeal vide judgment dated 30.10.2020, upheld the findings returned by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench.
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:27 :::CIS 89. Accordingly, in this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of by ordering that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench .
of this Court in in CWP-T No. 2145 of 2008, titled as Mandeep Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. and others alongwith other connected matters vide judgment dated 21.02.2011, as upheld in LPA No. 480 of 2011, titled as State of H.P. and others Vs. Mandeep Kumar, decided on 30.10.2020 alongwith other connected matters shall be treated to have been passed in this petition also mutatis mutandis, with a further observation that the petitioners herein are directed to be treated as employees appointed prior to 15th May, 2003 with all consequential benefits. The needful be done within a period of three months from today. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 20, 2021 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:12:27 :::CIS