Allowed

Paras Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Jul 2024CWP/4579/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed a writ petition seeking pensionary benefits. The court held that the petitioner, confirmed in the Health Department with his original appointment date retained, is entitled to benefits under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. The state is directed to grant pension and other benefits within eight weeks, with interest for delay.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 to 3 directed to grant pension, DCRG, leave encashment, and all other pensionary benefits including arrears within eight weeks, liable to pay interest for delay.

Paras Ram Vs State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:4773 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.: 4579 of 2023 Reserved on : 26.06.2024 Decided on : 09.07.2024

¶3

Paras Ram. ...………..Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. ……......Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Mr. Gobind Korla, Mr. Sushant Kaprete, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Arsh Rattan, Ms. Priyanka Chauhan and Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate Generals, for respondents no. 1 to 3.

¶9

: Dr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, for respondents no. 4 and 5.

¶10

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

¶11

¶12

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

¶13

The case as set-up by the petitioner is that he was engaged on daily wage basis in Nurpur Silk Mills under H.P. General Industries Corporation Limited (for short ‘HPGIC’). His services were regularised with effect from the year 1998. The services of petitioner alongwith some other employees of Nurpur Silk Mills were declared surplus in the year 2003 and they were deputed in the Department of Health, Himachal Pradesh. The services of petitioner were confirmed in the Department of Health in the year 2016. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Clerk in the month of April, 2018. He superannuated on 31.03.2019.

¶14

Petitioner claims that despite his eligibility, the respondents have denied him pensionary benefits, forcing him to file the instant petition.

¶15

Respondents No. 1 to 3, in the first instance, have raised a plea that the services of 27 employees of Nurpur Silk Mills

¶16

were transferred to the state health department on secondment basis and petitioner was one of them. The deployment initially was for one year, which was extended from time to time. It is contended

¶17

that the services of the petitioner and other similarly situated 26 incumbents were never absorbed in health department, therefore,

¶18

¶19

he was not entitled to the benefit under CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

¶20

The claim of the petitioner has also been resisted on the ground that the petitioner was subscriber to the Employees Provident Fund Scheme and the employer’s subscription had continuously been deposited by HPGIC. Further, a reference has been made to an office memorandum dated 11.05.2012, issued by the state government regarding permanent absorption of surplus staff taken on secondment basis by the said government. It is alleged that as per said policy, the employees who were appointed on or before 14.05.2003 on regular basis and were governed by CCS Pension Rules, 1972, in their parent organisation only were

¶21

entitled to be governed under aforesaid rules for pensionary benefits. As per respondents No. 1 to 3, since CCS Pension Rules, 1972, were not applicable to the services of the petitioner in his parent organisation, he was not entitled for pensionary and allied benefits.

¶22

It has next been contended that the matter with regard to absorption of employees taken on secondment basis in health department remained under consideration of the government for considerable period. The government vide its letter dated

¶23

¶24

07.04.2022, had conveyed its approval to permanently absorb the services of eleven officials deployed from Nurpur Silk Mills in the health department on secondment basis and also to regularize the services of seven daily waged officials. According to respondents No. 1 to 3, the aforesaid order could not be implemented on account of intervening circumstances viz. superannuation and regularization etc. of certain employees necessitating ex-post-facto approval of competent authority. The matter, thereafter, has remained shuttling between administrative, advisory and finance departments of the state government.

¶25

As regards the petitioner, it has been submitted that his case for grant of pension etc. has not been finally decided, though the matter has been submitted to the competent authority.

¶26

It has been admitted by respondents No. 1 to 3 that the petitioner had not been provided with any information with regard to his claim for pension and allied benefits.

¶27

The confirmation of the services of petitioner in health department and his subsequent promotion to the post of Clerk has been stated to be the result of mistake by the respondents.

¶28

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶30

have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

¶31

Admittedly, the services of the petitioner had been regularised as Class-IV employee in Nurpur Silk Mills under HPGIC in the year 1998. An office order dated 15.01.2003, issued on behalf of the Nurpur Silk Mills reveals that the surplus employees were relieved from their duties from Nurpur Silk Mills w.e.f. 15.01.2003 with directions to join their further duties in health department of the State on secondment basis initially for one year. In pursuance to aforesaid order, petitioner joined at Civil Hospital Dharamshala, H.P.

¶32

The services of petitioner in health department continued and were finally confirmed in the year 2006 vide office order Annexure P-3. His date of appointment was shown as 01.01.1998 meaning thereby that the date of regularisation of petitioner in Nurpur Silk Mills under HPGIC was duly considered. Petitioner was further promoted as Clerk vide office order dated 16.04.2018 and he retired from the said post on 31.03.2019. Though the respondents have termed their above acts as erroneous, however, no corrective action has been taken by them to rectify

¶33

¶34

their earlier mistake, if any, which creates an estoppel against the respondents.

¶35

As regards, the ineligibility of petitioner to get benefits under CCS Pension Rules in terms of office memorandum dated 11.05.2012, we are of the considered view that the same could not be made applicable in case of the petitioner as there is no material to suggest that the petitioner was ever afforded any opportunity or option to accept the terms and conditions of office memorandum as required under Clause-9 thereof.

¶36

Otherwise also, the defence raised by respondents No. 1 to 3 pales into insignificance as the government has already accorded approval for absorption of services of 11 employees of erstwhile Nurpur Silk Mills deployed on secondment basis with health department. Merely because, the said decision of the government has not been implemented for procedural reason, it cannot be used against the petitioner.

¶37

Respondents have also made a mention with respect to the case of the petitioner being under consideration of competent authority. It is not understandable, as to why, the same has not been decided finally after lapse of more than five years since the retirement of petitioner. It clearly amounts to negation of the claim

¶38

¶39

of petitioner, more particularly when it relates to the pensionary benefits.

¶40

Indisputably, the petitioner had been working in health department since 15.01.2003 i.e. before issuance of notification dated 15.05.2003, whereby the State Government restricted the applicability of CCS Pension Rules to the persons employed on or before 14.05.2003 on regular basis.

¶41

Petitioner is, thus, held entitled to the benefits under CCS Pension Rules.

¶42

In result, the petition is allowed. Respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to grant the benefits of pension, DCRG, leave encashment and all other pensionary benefits including arrears to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of the production of this judgment.

¶43

Since, the respondents have already unreasonably delayed the grant of due benefits to the petitioner, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 6 % per annum on the arrears and in case the benefits are not granted within eight weeks as ordered, respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum.

¶44

¶45

The Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of, so also

¶46

the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶47

(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice

¶48

9^th July, 2024

¶49

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶50

(sushma)

¶51

Paras Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paras Ram v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Another Vs Ashok Kumar

State of Hp and Another Vs Lala Ram

State of Hp and Another Vs Amar Singh

Rakhi Walia Vs Chaksh Deep Sood

Balbir Prashar Vs State of Hp and Others

Jeet Ram Vs State of Hp