Allowed

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

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jul 2024CWP/2775/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench disposed of a writ petition regarding pensionary benefits. The High Court directed the respondents to count the petitioners' contract-based service rendered prior to regularization as qualifying service for pension, relying on a specific Supreme Court judgment limiting the scope of such counting.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to count the service rendered by the petitioners on a contract basis after regularization as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

Ghanshyam Sharma and Ors. Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No.2024:HHC:4560-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2775 of 2021 Decided on 04^th July, 2024

¶3

Sh. Ghanshyam Sharma and others.

¶4

…Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the petitioners : Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General and Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶12

CMP No. 10384 of 2024

¶13

In view of the averments made in the application,

¶14

the same is allowed.

¶15

CWP no. 2775 of 2021

¶16

With the consent of the parties, the case is taken up

¶17

for final consideration.

¶18

2 . By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have,

¶19

inter alia, praye for the following reliefs:-

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

“(i) By issuing appropriate writ to the respondents directing them to count the services rendered by the petitioner on the contract basis w.e.f. his initial date of appointment upto date of his regularization towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits as per Rule 17 of CCS Pension Rules 1972.

¶23

(ii) By issuing appropriate writ to the respondents directing them to grant pensionary as well as other consequential benefits to the petitioner and implement the Judgment dated 26.12.2019 passed in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019, titled as Smt. Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. in the case of the petitioner.”

¶24

The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as Junior Basic Teachers on contract basis, in the year 1997. Their services were regularized on 01.01.2006. The petitioners worked uninterruptedly while on contract basis as Junior Basic Teachers followed by regularization. Their contention is that service rendered by them on contract basis is liable to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

¶25

Though reply to the petition has not been filed, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

¶26

¶27

India in SLP (Civil) No. 10399 of 2020, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. Vs. Sheela Devi, decided on 07.08.2023, in terms whereof Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has pleased to directed that the period of service rendered on contract basis followed by regularization has to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits only. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are also limiting their claim for the purpose of the counting of service rendered by them on contract basis for pensionary benefits.

¶28

State/respondents could not demonstrate to the contrary that the relief being prayed for by the petitioners is fully covered in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

¶29

India in State of Himachal Pradesh & anr. Vs. Sheela Devi (supra).

¶30

In view of the fact that now it stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of H.P. Vs. Sheela Devi (supra) that contractual service followed by regularization has to be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits only, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis be counted post

¶31

¶32

regularization as qualifying service for pensionary benefits only.

¶33

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed

¶34

of.

¶35

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶36

July 04, 2024 (Shivank Thakur)

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

Yash Pal Vs Banshi Ram

Rajo Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Suneera Sharma Vs State of Hp and Ors.