Allowed

Rama Nand Sharma v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Dec 2023CWPOA/6956/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge division upheld the petitioner's entitlement to count his contract service periods for pension and retirement benefits, affirming settled legal ratios from the High Court and Supreme Court, while limiting consequential financial benefits to three years prior to the petition's filing.

What did the court decide?

Direct counting of contract service for pension and retirement benefits, with actual financial payment released for three years prior to the filing of the petition.

Rama Nand Sharma Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWPOA No. 6956 of 2020 Decided on: 07.12.2023

¶3

________________________________________________________ Rama Nand Sharma ……….. Petitioner Versus State of HP & Ors. …Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶4

For the petitioner : Mr. Abheyndra Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Lokinder Paul Thakur, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No. 3.

¶5

________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge ( oral)

¶6

Petitioner was appointed as Ayurvedic Doctor on contract

¶7

basis on 30.03.1999 and his services were regularized without interruption and petitioner had retired from the service on 30.09.2014.

¶8

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to grant him pension and other retiral benefits by counting entire service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

¶9

Issue involved in present petition is no longer res integra and stands settled by various judgments of this High Court as well as

¶10

Supreme Court.

¶11

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

¶12

In Paras Ram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887 , it was held by the Court as under:-

¶13

“4. In the present case petitioner has uninterruptedly worked against the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher on ad hoc basis and has been awarded special certificate. He was regularized on 13.11.1997. In view of Annexure PB, the ad hoc services rendered by the petitioner before his regularization are to be counted towards annual increments. The petitioner has served the respondent-State as Junior Basic rained Teacher from 1987. He is entitled to get the entire services counted which has rendered on ad hoc basis with effect from 1987 for the purpose of annual increments. The petitioner has worked as a Junior Basic Trained Teacher for all intents and purposes and has been issued a certificate by the State as per notification dated 31.08.1995. There is no distinction visualized/contemplated in Annexure PB to which category the benefit of ad hoc services is to be granted for the purpose of annual increments. This notification will cover all the cases where the persons had worked on ad hoc basis and immediately thereafter they were regularized without any break in the Education Department. The services which the petitioner had similarly situate persons have rendered on ad hoc basis for a long period; cannot be permitted to be rendered otiose.”

¶14

On the basis of aforesaid pronouncement, one Sita Ram

¶15

was granted same benefit but without benefit of seniority and he had approached the Division Bench, by filing LPA No.36 of 2010, which was decided on 15.07.2010 denying him benefit of seniority on the basis of ad hoc service, but declaring him entitled for counting of ad hoc service followed by regular service for the purpose of increment and pension.

¶16

In CWP No.4550 of 2010 , titled as Ravi Kumar vs. State of H.P. and another , decided on 16.12.2010 alongwith connected matters, direction was given to grant annual increment and count ad hoc services for the purpose of pension in case of tenure appointees like ad hoc appointees in the Education Department. However, issue related to contract Teachers was kept open to be decided by the Authority.

¶17

In CWP No.5400 of 2014, titled as Veena Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd & another , decided on 21.11.2014, contract service followed by regular appointment without interruption was directed to be considered for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

¶18

Special Leave to Appeal CC No(s) 18898 of 2015, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and another vs. Veena Devi , preferred against the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 26.10.2015.

¶19

In CWP No.8953 of 2013, titled as Joga Singh and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , and connected matters, decided on 15.06.2015, Division Bench of this Court had directed to extend benefits of annual increments as well as qualifying service for pension which was followed by regular appointment.

¶20

After dismissal of SLP(C) No.183 of 2016, titled as State

¶21

of H.P. & others vs. Joga Singh and others , Review Petition (Civil) No.274 of 2017 in the said SLP(C) No.183 of 2016, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 02.03.2017.

¶22

In similar case CWPOA No.195 of 2019 , titled as Sheela Devi vs. State of H.P. & others , decided on 26.12.2019, after taking into consideration Rule 17 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CCS Pension Rules), and other pronouncements of this High Court as well as Supreme Court, Division Bench of this Court had directed to count period of contract service followed by regular service as qualifying service for granting pension.

¶23

In Jagdish Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others , decided on 10.01.2020, alongwith connected matters, it was directed to count contract service followed by regularization against the post of JBT towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS Pension Rules as well as for annual increment, but restricting actual financial benefits to three years prior to filing of writ petitions.

¶24

It is also an admitted fact that SLP (Civil) No.10399 of 2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & another vs. Sheela Devi , and SLP(C) Nos.8012-8013 of 2021, in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jagdish Chand , have been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 07.08.2023 with direction that past service of contractual employee on regularization is to be counted for the purpose of pension and thus judgments in Sheela Devi’s and Jagdish Chand’s cases , referred supra, have attained finality.

¶25

Learned Additional Advocate General, though not pleaded in the reply, has contended that in Sheela Devi’s case benefits of counting contract service for annual increment has not been granted.

¶26

In Sheela Devi’s case (supra), the High Court has directed to count the contract service for the purpose of qualifying service towards pension. However, Apex Court, in its order dated 7.8.2023 has directed the respondents/State to count the contract service for the purpose of pension. Needless to say that for counting the service to extend the benefit thereof for pension, annual increment for the relevant period is an essential factor required to be considered for calculating pension. Observations by the Division Bench of this Court in this regard in CWP No.850 of 2010, titled Paras Ram vs. State of HP and others , Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887, as also referred in order dated 15.7.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.36 of 2010 , titled Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. , are relevant wherein it has been stated that service counted for the purpose of annual increment will be counted for pension also. There is direction for counting the contractual service for pension/pensionary benefits. Counting of service for pension includes, counting of length of service for qualifying service for pension, as well as for quantifying the amount of pension payable by calculating it on the basis of basic pay with addition of increment. Therefore, direction to count service for pension also mandates calculation of pension by granting annual increment for relevant period either actual or notional basis.

¶27

It is also apt to record that CWP No.850 of 2010 , titled Paras Ram vs. State of HP and others was decided on 19.10.2010, which has attained finality. Order in Sita Ram’s case has also attained finality.

¶28

In a case of similarly situated person, in CWPOA No. 5101 of 2020 , titled Dr. Kuldeep Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , decided on 06.09.2023, on the basis of aforesaid pronouncements, similar relief has been granted by this Court.

¶29

In view of aforesaid of judgments on the subject matter, we are of the considered view that present case is squarely covered with aforesaid ratio propounded by this High Court affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, aforesaid judgments shall be mutatis mutandi applicable in the present matter also and petitioner shall be entitled for counting his contract services for the purpose of pensionary benefits as well as annual increments for the said period with all consequential benefits, but restricting actual consequential financial benefits to three years prior to filing of writ petitions.

¶30

Present petition has been filed as OA No. 2215/2019 on 30.05.2019, therefore, actual payment of benefits shall be restricted for three years prior to filing of O.A. No.2215 of 2019. 20. Due and admissible benefits shall be released to the petitioners within a period of four months from today. Needless to say that benefits given beyond three years prior to filing of writ petitions shall be extended to them on notional basis.

¶31

(Vivek Singh Thakur)

¶32

Judge

¶33

(Sandeep Sharma) Judge

¶34

December 07, 2023 (sunil)

Rama Nand Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Nand Sharma v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Des Raj and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Ranjeet Singh Vs Cskhpkv

Kamal Parkash Vs State of Hp

Krishna Devi Vs State of Hp

Manav Singh Pathania Vs Hpseb Ltd.

Prem Lal Vs State of Hp