Allowed

Prem Chand v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jul 2024CWP/4151/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a retired forest worker, challenged the non-inclusion of his work charge service period in pension calculations. The Court, relying on a Supreme Court precedent, held that post-regularization work charge service is qualifying service.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to count petitioner's work charge service for pension and enhance benefits within six weeks.

Prem Chand Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:HHC:4616-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 4151 of 2021 Decided on: 05.07.2024

¶4

Sh. Prem Chand	… Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others	… Respondents
Coram

¶5

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

¶6

______________________ For the petitioner	_____ :	________________________ M/s A.K. Gupta and Babita Chauhan, Advocates.
For the respondents	:	Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rupinder Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State.
		None for respondent No.4.

¶7

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶8

By way of this petition, the petitioner has , inter alia ,

¶9

prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶10

“ i) That the respondents may be ordered to add service rendered by the petitioner on work charge basis towards the pensionary benefits and pension after taking into account may be ordered to be enhanced from the due date with all the benefits incidental thereof. ii) That the gratuity amount may also be ordered to be revised by the respondents after taking into consideration the work charge service rendered by the petitioner and the gratuity for the period the petitioner remained on work charge basis, as per Payment of Gratuity Rules. ”

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

The case of the petitioner is that he was initially appointed on daily wage basis as Forest Worker on 01.01.1984. His services were regularized in the year 1998 and he superannuated after the service on 31.03.2020. His contention is that the service rendered by the petitioner after the conferment of the work charge status is not being counted for the purpose of computation of pension by treating that period to be qualifying period for the purpose of calculating pension.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that the work charge status was conferred upon the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994. This stands averred in Para-2 of the petition and as far as these facts are concerned they are not disputed.

¶15

Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit as is being prayed for and the judgment of being relied upon by the petitioner, i.e. CWP No.2384 of 2018, titled State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Sh. Matwar Singh & another, decided on 18.12.2018, is not applicable in his case.

¶16

Be that as it may, the moot issue involved in this case is that as to whether the service rendered by the petitioner as a work charge has to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of computation of pension or not.

¶17

¶18

This Court is of the considered view that this issue can not said to be res integra in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 08.03.2018.

¶19

Though, in that particular case, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court was relatable to the consideration of the daily wage service rendered by a workman for the purpose of computing his eligibility for grant of pension, yet Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para-2 of the judgment observed that it is undisputed that post regularization an employee who had served for ten years is entitled for pension for which work charge service is counted. Plain and simple reading of this sentence used by Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no room of doubt that once work charge status is conferred upon a workman or a daily wage, then it is this service rendered by him of work charge status, followed by regularization, which has to be counted for all intent and purposes for the purpose of computing pension. Therefore, in this backdrop,non consideration of service rendered on work charge for the purpose of pension is bad in law.

¶20

In light of the above observations, this petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to count the service rendered by the petitioner as a work charge for the purpose of computing his pension. Needful be done within a period of six weeks

¶21

¶22

from today. In view of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court immediately after his superannuation, actual retiral benefits that accrue from the judgment shall be given to him from the date of his retirement.

¶23

The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶24

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶25

July 05, 2024 (Rishi)

Prem Chand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Chand 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

Jagtamba Devi (Deceased through LRs Chander Pal) and Others Vs Desh Raj

Ram Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Rajinder Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Basant Ram Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Vikram Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Anupama Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors.