Petitioners challenged cancellation of GPF subscriptions. Court noted established precedent that contractual service counts for regularization and benefits. Held quashing of discontinuation order valid and directed resumption of deductions.
Letter dated 4.4.2019 discontinuing GPF subscription quashed; restored prior deduction arrangement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 6727/2020 Decided on: 3.5.2024
Dinesh Kumar Sen & ors. …..Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge . The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No
For the petitioners: Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs. and Mr. Raj Negi, Dy.A.G. for the respondentsState.
Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondents No. 3 & 4.
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (oral)
Respondents No. 1 and 2 have failed to file their
reply, hence right to file the same is closed in terms of order dated 19.4.2024.
2 The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:
“that letter dated 4.4.2019 (Annexed A-2) whereby the GPF subscription is being discontinued may kindly be quashed and set aside.”
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2
2 The petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers on contract basis in the years 1995 and 1996 respectively and their services came to be regularized in the year 2004 and after regularization of their services, GPF subscription was deducted at source from their pay and was being regularly deposited in GPF account of the petitioners upto 2019. Later on it appears that the subscription of the GPF of the petitioners was ordered to be discontinued on account of letter dated 4.4.2019 received from the office of Accountant General, relevant portion whereof reads as
under:-
“A representation has been received on 18/03/2019 (copy enclosed) from Sh. Surjeet Singh Mehta, Engineer Officer, NH Circle, HPPWD, Shimla-4 vide which he has requested to continue his GPF subscription till case is decided by the Hon'ble Court. In this regard, it is stated speaking orders of the Govt. of H.P. to continue the GPF subscription on the basis of orders/judgement passed by the Hon'ble court may be supplied to this office, otherwise subscription may be discontinued without further delay in terms of H.P. Govt. order No. Fin (Pen) A (3)- 1/96 dated 17/08/2006 as already intimated vide this office letter No. Nidhi2/CPS/2018-19/2110-29 dated 22/11/2018.
This may be treated as most urgent.”
3 The moot question is as to from what date services of the petitioners are required to be counted for the purpose of regularization, seniority, pension and other benefits.
3
4 This issue has been authoritatively decided in CWP No.6785/2008, titled as Narinder Naik vs. State of H.P., vide judgment dated 14.9.2010, wherein this Court has authoritatively held that services rendered on contractual basis shall account for for all intents and purposes including regularization, seniority and pensionary benefits, which judgment, in turn, has attained finality in view of dismissal of SLP No. 7063/2014.
5 As a matter of fact, similar reiteration of law can be found in another judgment of this Court in CWP No. 2004/2017, titled as Taj Mohammad vs State of H.P., dated 3.8.2023 , which, too has attained finality after having been unsuccessfully challenged by the State before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6 Once the legal position is no longer res integra , the respondents could not have directed GPF subscription of the petitioners to be discontinued, more particularly when, the petitioner were appointed in the years 1995 and 1996 respectively and their services were regularized in the year 2004.
7 Accordingly, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. Consequently, letter dated 4.4.2019 (Annexure A-2), whereby the GPF subscription of the petitioners have been ordered to be discontinued, is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to deduct GPF
4
subscription of the petitioners as was being done prior to issuance of letter dated 4.4.2019. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge
(Sushil Kukreja) 3.5.2024 Judge
(pankaj)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether GPF subscription discontinuation order was sustainable given established legal position on regularization.
Whether contractual service tenure counts for regularization, seniority, and pensionary benefits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narinder Naik vs. State of H.P.Distinguished¶23
CWP No.6785/2008, titled as Narinder Naik vs. State of H.P.
Taj Mohammad vs State of H.P.Referred¶24
CWP No. 2004/2017, titled as Taj Mohammad vs State of H.P.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar Sen & ors.
State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Sushil Kukreja
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
