Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Devi Singh Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

Home
Himachal Pradesh HC
2024
Devi Singh Vs State of Hp and OthersDevi Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Allowed¶¶23

Devi Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Jul 2024CWP/4234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No. 4234 of 2024; Devi Singh v. State of H.P. & others; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; decided 03.07.2024 by Bipin Chander Negi, J. (oral). Subject: counting 9 years 9 months of service as 10 years of qualifying service for pension under Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Relies on State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Health) v. Joginder Singh, LPA No. 285 of 2010, 2012 (3) Him L.R. (DB) 1288. Disposition: petition allowed; service of 9 years 9 months counted as 10 years qualifying service for pension. Keywords: CCS (Pension) Rules; Rule 49(3); Sub Rule (3); qualifying service; pensionary benefits; rounding of service; pension eligibility; Himachal Pradesh; State of H.P.; Joginder Singh.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: petitioner's service of 9 years 9 months counted as 10 years of qualifying service for pension in terms of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Why is it important?

The petitioner's service of 9 years 9 months shall be counted as 10 years of qualifying service for pension in terms of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules (cited as Rules, 1992 in the operative paragraph), and accordingly the petition is allowed. ¶¶23

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed: petitioner's service of 9 years 9 months counted as 10 years of qualifying service for pension in terms of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who has rendered 9 years and 9 months of service, is entitled to pension with that service counted as 10 years of qualifying service under Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Court's answer

The petitioner's service of 9 years 9 months shall be counted as 10 years of qualifying service for pension in terms of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules (cited as Rules, 1992 in the operative paragraph), and accordingly the petition is allowed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Single Judge: Bipin Chander Negi, J., oral) — CWP No. 4234 of 2024, decided 03.07.2024 — Devi Singh v. State of H.P. & others — CCS (Pension) Rules, Rule 49(3) — qualifying service — pension. Petitioner, who had rendered 9 years 9 months of service, sought consideration for pension with that service reckoned as 10 years of qualifying service. Relying on the Division Bench decision in State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Health) v. Joginder Singh, LPA No. 285 of 2010 (judgment dated 22.06.2012), reported as 2012 (3) Him L.R. (DB) 1288 — in which the Administrative Department, after consultation with the Finance Department, had filed an affidavit clarifying that service of 9 years 9 months and above should be treated as 10 years qualifying service under Sub Rule (3) of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules — the Court allowed the petition and directed that the petitioner's service of 9 years 9 months be counted as 10 years of qualifying service for pension. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

A

( 2024:HHC:4422 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 4234 of 2024 Date of Decision: 03.07.2024

Devi Singh .....Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & others …..Respondents. Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ For the petitioner: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gautam Sood, Deputy Advocate General.

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

The present petition has been filed seeking following

reliefs:

“a. That the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension in terms of Rule 49 (3) of CCS (Pension) Rules in the interest of justice and fair play.

b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the pensionary benefits to the petitioner by calculating 9 years and 9 months as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits in the interest of justice.”

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the pleadings and instructions dated 15.06.2024

placed on record filed by the respondent/State.

Admittedly, in the case at hand, the petitioner

has completed 9 years and 9 months of service. The petitioner has placed reliance on Rule 49 (3) of CCS (Pension

Rules, 1972 and has claimed that on the basis of the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

1

2

aforesaid Rule service rendered by the petitioner of 9 years and 9 months can be taken to be 10 years of service.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to a judgment dated 22.06.2012, passed in LPA No. 285 of 2010 , titled State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Health) vs. Joginder Singh , reported as 2012 (3) Him L.R. (DB) 1288.

5. A perusal of the said judgment reflects that in the same the present issue had come up for consideration of the Court.

In the aforesaid reported judgment, the Administrative department after consultation with the Finance Department had filed an affidavit, wherein it had clarified that period of 9 years and 9 months and above should be treated as 10 years in terms of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension Rules, 1972, as qualifying service of 10 years for the pension.

In view thereof, the present petition is allowed. Service rendered by petitioner i.e. 9 years 9 months shall be counted as 10 years of service of qualifying service for pension in terms of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

July 3, 2024 (Nisha)

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner, who has rendered 9 years and 9 months of service, is entitled to pension with that service counted as 10 years of qualifying service under Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules.¶¶19
The court held
The petitioner's service of 9 years 9 months shall be counted as 10 years of qualifying service for pension in terms of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules (cited as Rules, 1992 in the operative paragraph), and accordingly the petition is allowed.ratio¶¶23

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Health) vs. Joginder SinghRelied on¶¶20
2012 (3) Him L.R. (DB) 1288.

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

CCS (Pension) RulesRule 49(3)¶¶8
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972Rule 49(3)¶¶22
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1992Rule 49(3)¶¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Devi Singh¶¶4
Ms. Archana Dutt
respondent
State of H.P.¶¶4
Mr. Gautam Sood

Coram

AI extract

Bipin Chander Negiauthor¶¶4

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Himachal Pradesh HC
Decided on: 3 Jul 2024 · July
Registered: 16 May 2024
Case no.: CWP/4234/2024
CNR: HPHC010192872024
Bench: Bipin Chander Negi
Disposal: Allowed
Case type: CWP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Bipin Chander Negi

National Highway Authority of India Vs Leela Devi and Others
2 Jul 2024
Pardeep Kumar Vs State of Hp
2 Jul 2024
Aakash Vs State of Hp
2 Jul 2024
Seema Guleria Vs State of Hp and Others
3 Jul 2024
Randeep Singh Vs State of Hp and Others
3 Jul 2024
Amrit Lal Vs State of Hp and Another
3 Jul 2024

Cite this judgement

Devi Singh v. State of Hp and Others, CWP/4234/2024 (HP), decided on 3 July 2024.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (Health) vs. Joginder SinghRelied on¶¶20

Open Authorities

Statutes3

CCS (Pension) RulesRule 49(3)
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972Rule 49(3)
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1992Rule 49(3)

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

Bipin Chander Negi

Parties & counsel