Rana Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 14577 of 2024

Date of Decision: 14.11.2025

____________ ___________________________________________ Rana Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the Petitioner:	Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.
	Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5.
____________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judg	___________________________________ e (oral):

¶7

In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

¶8

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. H.R.Sidhu, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that one year service rendered by petitioner as Whole Time Contingent paid employee has wrongly been not taken into consideration by the respondents, while computing his qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Petitioner herein had served the respondent-Department as Part Time Water Carrier

¶9

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

¶10

2

¶11

w.e.f.23.07.1997 to 30.12.2004 i.e. seven years, five months and seven days. Thereafter, w.e.f. 31.12.2004 till 30.12.2005 i.e .one year, he worked as whole time contingent paid employee. W.e.f.30.12.2005 to 31.05.2013, he served the Department as a Peon on regular basis i.e., seven years, five months and one day.

¶12

Though, on 31.05.2013 petitioner superannuated on

¶13

account of his having attained the age of 58 years, but subsequently, on the basis of judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017, titled Baldev vs.

¶14

State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected

¶15

matters, wherein Full Bench of this Court, while dealing with the question regarding the age of retirement to be 58 years or a right of an employee to continue in service upto attainment of age of 60 years, held that the retirement date of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the

¶16

date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years, notional benefit of two years on the analogy of aforesaid Baldev Singh

¶17

3

¶18

case(supra) i.e. 31.05.2013 to 31.05.2015 came to be granted to the petitioner, meaning thereby he was deemed to be retired on 31.05.2015 on account of extension of benefit of judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in Baldev Singh case(supra). Petitioner rendered regular service of nine years, five months and one day prior to his superannuation on 31.05.2015 but he has been denied benefit of the pension on the ground that he did not complete ten years service of qualifying service as prescribed under Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules.

¶19

In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner is that service

¶20

of one year rendered by him prior to his regularization in the capacity of whole Time contingent paid ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondents, while computing qualifying service. Had the respondents taken into consideration aforesaid period of one year of whole time contingent paid, regular service of the petitioner would have become more than ten years, five months and one day and in that eventuality, he would have become entitled for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules.

¶21

Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents-State has filed reply, wherein facts, as

¶22

4

¶23

have been noticed hereinabove have been not disputed, rather stands duly admitted. It would be apt take note of following paras of the reply herein-below:-

¶24

“2. That in reply to this para, it is submitted that the petitioner was initially engaged as Part Time Water Carrier on 23.07.1997 at Government Primary School, Jeehan Block Nadaun, District Hamirpur. In the year, 2012, as per policy, the services of the petitioner were converted as Whole Time Contingent Paid on 31.12.2004 and joined at GSSS(Boys) Nadaun, Block Nadaun, District Hamirpur.

¶25

That in reply to this para, it is submitted that the services of the petitioner were regularized as Peon (Class-IV employee) against the available vacancy purely on seniority basis vide order dated 30.12.2005 issued by the Deputy Director of Higher Education, District Hamirpur and joined at GSSS Jol Sapper, District Hamirpur. The petitioner was retired as Peon on 31.05.2013 from GSSS(Boys) Nadaun, District Hamirpur after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years.

¶26

That in reply to this para, it is submitted that the another similar issue has recently been decided by the Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 2711 of 2017 on 22.02.2022, wherein the Hon’ble Court has referred that the date of engagement is the decisive factor in such matters. If date of engagement/appointment is prior to 10.05.2001, the Class-IV employee will continue to serve till 60 years of age. In case, it is later than 10.05.2001, then restriction in age upto 58 years will apply. In view of the above titled case the petitioner is entitled to be deemed in service till

¶27

5

¶28

he attained the age of 60 years on notional basis. Accordingly, his total regular service will become 9 years 5 months and one day which is less than 10 years as minimum qualifying service for the purpose of pension as per Central Civil Service Pension Rules (Pension) 1972. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for pensionary benefits under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and there is no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

That in reply to this para, it is submitted that the total regular service of the petitioner is 9 years five months and one day after granting of the benefit of Baldev Singh’s case, which his less than 10 years as minimum qualifying service for the purpose of pension as per Central Civil Service Pension Rules (Pension)1972, hence, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the present petition is not legally sustainable, therefore, liable to be rejected.”

¶30

If the averments contained in the aforesaid paras of the reply filed by the respondents are read in conjunction, there is no dispute that petitioner served the Department as Whole Time Contingent Paid 31.12.2004 to 30.12.2005 and thereafter

¶31

his services were regularized w.e.f. 30.12.2005. Though, petitioner, after having rendered seven years, five months and one day service on regular basis, was retired at the age of 58 years, but subsequently, respondents themselves having taken note of the judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in

¶32

6

¶33

Baldev Singh case (supra), granted him notional benefit of two years, as a result thereof, he was deemed to be retired on 31.05.2015. As per the respondents, petitioner rendered total regular service of nine years, five months and one day, but now question which needs to be determined in the instant proceedings is “whether services rendered by the petitioner as Whole Time Contingent Paid is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing qualifying service or not?”.

¶34

The case of the respondents is that services rendered by the petitioner as contingent paid cannot be counted towards qualifying service as per Rules 2, 13 and 14 of CCS (Pension) Rules. However, aforesaid contention rasied at the behest of the respondents already stands negated by Coordinate Bench of this Court, while rendering judgment dated 27.06.2025 passed in CWP No. 6688 of 2021, titled as Bimla

¶35

Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein the court concerned, taking note of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2384 of 2018, titled as, State of

¶36

H.P. & others vs. Matwar Singh & another , decided on

¶37

18.12.2018, whereby the work charge status followed by regular

¶38

7

¶39

appointment was ordered to be counted as a component of qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits, held that service rendered by Whole Time Contingent paid employee shall be counted for the purpose of pension. If it is so, services rendered by the petitioner as whole time contingent paid employee w.e.f.31.12.2004 to 31.12.2005 i.e., one year ought to have been added to regular service of nine years, five months and one day rendered by the petitioner and accordingly, his total service exceeded more than 10 years and necessary he is required to be held entitled to pension. Relevant paras of the afore judgment read as under:-

¶40

“15. By applying the principles laid down in Balo Devi, Sheela Devi and Sunder Singh (supra), the case of full-time workers paid from contingency cannot be distinguished merely because it falls in excluding clause of Rule 2. The first proviso to Rule 13 being a substantive provision will be read in the instant case in the similar manner as Rule 17 has been construed in Sheela Devi. The explanation has been carved out in the 1st proviso to Rule 13, as noticed above.

¶41

16. In Prem Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had struck down Rule 3 (8) of U.P. Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 and had also struck down regulation Civil Services Regulations of U.P., whereby the period of work charge service was excluded from computation of qualifying service for grant of pension. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the factual aspect as under:-

¶42

“33. The question arises whether the imposition of rider that such service to be counted has to be rendered in between two spells of temporary or temporary and permanent service is legal and proper. We find that once regularization had been made on vacant posts, though the employee had not served prior to that on temporary basis, considering the nature of appointment, though it was not a regular appointment it was made on monthly salary and thereafter in the pay scale of work-charged establishment the efficiency bar was permitted to be crossed. It would be

¶43

8

¶44

highly discriminatory and irrational because of the rider contained in Note to Rule 3(8) of 1961 Rules, not to count such service particularly, when it can be counted, in case such service is sandwiched between two temporary or inbetween temporary and permanent services. There is no rhyme or reason not to count the service of work-charged period in case it has been rendered before regularisation. In our opinion, an impermissible classification has been made under Rule 3(8). It would be highly unjust, impermissible and irrational to deprive such employees benefit of the qualifying service. Service of work-charged period remains the same for all the employees, once it is to be counted for one class, it has to be counted for all to prevent discrimination. The classification cannot be done on the irrational basis and when respondents are themselves counting period spent in such service, it would be highly discriminatory not to count the service on the basis of flimsy classification. The rider put on that work-charged service should have preceded by temporary capacity is discriminatory and irrational and creates an impermissible classification. 34. As it would be unjust, illegal and impermissible to make aforesaid classification to make the Rule 3(8) valid and non-discriminatory, we have to read down the provisions of Rule 3(8) and hold that services rendered even prior to regularization in the capacity of work charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non- pensionable establishment shall also be counted towards the qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.”

¶45

16. Applying the same principle, it can be seen that except for payment being made to Ranbir Singh from contingency, all other benefits taken into consideration in Prem Singh (supra), Balo Devi, Sheela Devi, Matwar Singh are found present. Ranbir Singh had rendered continuous full-time service w.e.f. 14.2.2002 till 30.9.2003 and thereafter w.e.f. 1.10.2003, his services were regularized. Admittedly, it was not the case of fresh appointment given to Ranbir Singh w.e.f. 1.10.2003 on the substantive post of Class-IV as a result of some selection process. Undoubtedly, he was given the benefit of regularization by considering his continuance in past service initially as part time contingent paid and w.e.f. 14.2.2002 as full time contingent paid worker. In this view of the matter, to ignore the service of Ranbir Singh as fulltime contingent worker w.e.f. 14.2.2002 will be travesty. He was paid on monthly basis and there was no break in his service after upgradation of his service as full time contingent paid worker. Thus, in my considered view, the ratio of judgment in Prem Singh (supra) applies to the facts of the case.

¶46

Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds

¶47

merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is

¶48

9

¶49

allowed. The respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner after taking the whole time contingent period w.e.f. 31.12.2004 to 31.12.2005 as qualifying service in addition to regular service of nine years, five months and one day, within

¶50

eight weeks from the date of this order with all consequential benefits. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶51

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 14, 2025 (shankar)

Rana Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rana Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avesh Stan and Ors. Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Ors.

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Hp

Karam Chand Vs Hrtc and Another

Gurmej Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Inder Pal and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Poonam Kumari and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others