Allowed

Trishla Devi v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Sept 2020CWPOA/5643/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a Lecturer appointed on contract in 1999 and regularized in 2009, sought service benefits including pension from her contract period. Relying on precedents establishing equality for contractual employees, the Court allowed the petition without independent adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to count contract service period (30.9.1999 to 1.12.2009) for pension, revisions, seniority, promotion, increments, and other consequential benefits.

Trishla Devi Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No. 5643 of 2019 Decided on: 8.9.2020

¶2

______________________________________________ Trishla Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.	____________________ ………..Petitioner ……….Respondents
_______________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹	___________________
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeevan Kuma For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharm with Mr. Sudhir Arvind Sharma, General.	r, proxy counsel. a, Advocate General, Bhatnagar and Mr. Additional Advocates
______________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):	____________________

¶3

By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for

¶4

following main reliefs:

¶5

“That the present Original Application may kindly be allowed and the respondent department may kindly be directed to count the service of contract period of the applicant till regularization for all service benefits like, revision of pay scale, seniority, promotion, increments and pensionary benefits with consequential benefits as per Rule-17 of CCS (Pension) Rule 1972.”

¶6

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner was appointed as Lecturer Hindi (School Cadre) on contract basis on 30.9.1999 and thereafter, services of the petitioner were regularized with

¶7

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

¶8

¶9

the Department on 1.12.2009. It is also not in dispute that petitioner from the date of her initial appointment on 30.9.1999 continued to serve the department uninterruptedly without there being any break till her regularization.

¶10

3. Precisely, the claim of the petitioner is that services rendered by her w.e.f. 30.9.1999 as Lecturer Hindi (School Cadre) on contract basis till her regularization on 1.12.2009 are required to be taken into consideration by the department while computing qualifying service for the purpose of consequential benefits i.e. pensionary benefits and annual increment etc.

¶11

4. Parties are ad-idem that aforesaid question has been elaborately dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.12.2019,titled Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of HP and Ors in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019 (further followed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.1.2020 in CWP No. 3267 of 2019 titled Ram Krishan Sharma v. The

¶12

Accountant General (A&E) HP and Ors), wherein it has been concluded that services rendered even prior to regularization in any capacity be it work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or nonpensionable establishment have to be counted towards qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.

¶13

¶14

5. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has already held that no discrimination can be made qua the employees, who rendered services prior to regularization in the capacity of contractual employees and were regularized only because they had put in the requisite number of years of service on contractual basis like their counterparts who had rendered services in the capacity of work charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment, of course, for that matter even on ad-hoc basis.

¶15

6. Learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment 14.9.2010 dated passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008 titled Narender Singh Naik v. State of HP and Ors (further upheld by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 271 of 2011), wherein respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for counting the period he has worked on contract basis till regularization with all consequential benefits in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (1990) 2 SCC 715 .

¶16

7. Since question needs to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings has been elaborately dealt with and decided by the Division Bench of this court in Smt. Sheela Devi and Narender Singh Naik’s case (supra), this Court sees no reason to go into this question again, especially

¶17

¶18

when all the facts and relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition are identical to that of aforesaid case.

¶19