Suneera Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.

¶1

2024:HHC:5928-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 2079 of 2020 Decided on: 04.07.2024

¶4

Suneera Sharma … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others … Respondents

¶5

Coram

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. None for respondent No.3.

¶9

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶10

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

¶11

following reliefs:-

¶12

“ i. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioner on adhoc basis prior to her regularization towards qualifying service for grant of pension, in the interest of law and justice.

¶13

ii. That an appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly b issued directing the respondents to allot GPF Account No. to the petitioner, in the interest of law and justice.

¶14

iii) That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued to the respondents to govern the

¶15

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

¶16

2

¶17

petitioner under Old Pension Scheme i.e. Scheme prevalent prior to Contributory Pension Scheme, 2006, in the interest of law and justice.

¶18

iv. That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the adhoc service of the petitioner for the purpose of increments, as also for grant of benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme and further respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the arrears after granting these benefits to the petitioner alongwith interest @9% per annum, in the interest of law and justice. ”

¶19

The petitioner was initially appointed as a Senior Scale Stenographer on adhoc basis vide Annexure P-1, dated 22.05.1999 for a period of one year or till the repatriation of Sh. Laxman Dass Mandhotra, Senior Scale Stenographer, who was on deputation with Himachal Pradesh Secretariat, whichever is earlier. The petitioner continued to serve as such and her services were regularized against the post of Junior Scale Stenographer vide order dated 31.12.2004. It was mentioned in the letter of regularization that the petitioner shall be released the pay scale of Senior Scale Stenographer as and when she clears the prescription test in shorthand. Thereafter, when the petitioner passed the prescription test, the pay scale of a Senior Scale Stenographer, i.e. the pay scale of Rs.5800-9200/- was released to her with immediate effect vide Annexure P-3, dated 01.04.2006.

¶20

3

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis in the year 1999 and as she continued to serve on adhoc basis till her regularization in the year 2004, the service rendered by her on adhoc basis are liable to be counted for pension and other benefits.

¶22

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner on adhoc basis was with a clear understanding and on clear condition that she would not get any benefit thereof. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits as an employee of the respondentCommission only from the date of regularization and in this view of the matter the petition is without any jurisdiction. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized on 31.12.2004 as a Junior Scale Stenographer and the pay scale of Senior Scale Stenographer, after qualifying the prescribed test in stenography, was granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2006. He further submitted that this was accepted by the petitioner without any protest etc. and now at this stage, the petitioner cannot seek the reliefs which are being prayed by her and which for the first time were raised by her only in the year 2011.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have

¶24

4

¶25

also carefully through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

¶26

It is a matter of record that the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as a Senior Scale Stenographer vide Office Order dated 22.05.1999. It is also a matter of record that she continued to serve as such till she was regularized as a Junior Scale Stenographer w.e.f. 31.12.2004. It is also a matter of record that on her passing the prescribed test in stenography, she was granted the pay scale of a Senior Scale Stenographer w.e.f. 01.04.2006.

¶27

Be that as it may, fact of the matter is that the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner culminated into the regularization of her service. The issue as to whether such service can be counted for pension etc. is now no more res integra and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.10399 of 2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Sheela Devi, decided on 07.08.2023, has been pleased to hold that the service that has been rendered by an employee on contract basis followed by regularization has to be counted only for the purpose of pension. It has been held by this Court that service rendered by an employee, be it on adhoc or on contract basis before regularization, amounts to one and the same thing.

¶28

In this view of the matter, though the petitioner is not

¶29

5

¶30

entitled for all the reliefs as are being prayed for by her, but she at least is entitled for the relief that the service rendered by her on adhoc basis before her regularization is entitled to be counted for the purpose of pension only. Under which particular scheme of post superannuation benefits, the petitioner fall, is not being adjudicated by the Court as it was not argued, but this Court holds that the period which has been spent by the petitioner on adhoc basis followed by regularization shall be considered as far as pension is concerned.

¶31

With these observations, this Writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents that the adhoc service rendered by the petitioner before her regularization be counted only for the purpose of pension. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶32

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶33

July 04, 2024 (Rishi)

Suneera Sharma v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneera Sharma v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukand Lal deceased through Lrs. Dharam Pal Vs Kamlesh (Deleted) Sh. Sunil and others

Hari Singh Vs State of Hp and Another

Tek Ram Vs Rohan Chand Thakur

Ghanshyam Sharma and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Yash Pal Vs Banshi Ram

Rajo Devi Vs State of Hp and Others