Prithvi Singh Vs State of Hp

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWPOA No.5934 of 2019 Decided on: 08.10.2025

__________________________________________________________ Prithi Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4-State. Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.5-Accountant General.

¶5

Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral]

¶6

Petitioner Prithi Singh, a retired Fitter, [Class-III] from Irrigation and Public Health [now Jal Shakti Vibhag], has come up before this

¶7

Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

¶8

“i) That the office order dated 24.09.2012, Annexure A-3, issued by respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant pension and other pensionary benefits etc. to the applicant from due date, i.e. 31.05.2012 along with interest @ 12% per annum.

¶9

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

¶10

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶11

2 -

¶12

(iii) That the directions may very kindly be issued to the respondents to give the work charged status/regularization to the applicant as Fitter immediate after the completion of 10 years continuous service, i.e., with effect from 1989 with all consequential benefits.”

¶13

FACTUAL MATRIX:

¶14

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he

¶15

was engaged as Fitter, on Daily Wage Basis, in Irrigation and Public Health, Division No.1, Una, in 1979 and he completed 10 years of continuous service as Daily Waged Fitter in 1989 but his services were regularized as Fitter by respondents after 15 years of continuous Daily Waged Service on 15.12.1994, [Annexure A-1] and after joining on regularization , the petitioner was granted premature voluntary retirement from Government service on 31.05.2012. In this backdrop, the case of petitioner is that though he has rendered 16 years daily waged service from 1978 to 1994 and had rendered regular service of 18 years and 5 months from 15.12.1994 till retirement on 31.05.2012, yet, the State Authorities have not granted pension to

¶16

the petitioner. It is averred that the case for

¶17

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶18

3 -

¶19

pension was sent by Executive Engineer, I&PH, Division No.1, Una to Accountant General [A&E] Himachal Pradesh on 27.07.2012, [Annexure A-2], but the same was turned down at the instance of Accountant General Himachal Pradesh Shimla vide letter dated 12.09.2012, on the ground, that as per the Himachal Pradesh Department Personnel OM dated 16.03.2012, the pensionary benefits, in case of premature/voluntary retirement of an employee was admissible only on completion of 20 years of service and since the petitioner [Prithi Singh] had completed 18 years and 5 months of service, therefore, he was not entitled for the pensionary benefits, leading to rejection of his case on 24.09.2012, [Annexure A-3] and t his rejection order has been assailed in the instant petition with the prayer to quash the same and to direct the respondents to grant the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner from due date i.e. 31.05.2012 along with interest @ 12% per annum.

¶20

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶21

4 -

¶22

STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES No. 1 to 4 IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT :

¶23

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the

¶24

Respondents-State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit of Superintending Engineer, I &PH Circle Una. 3(i). So far as the claim of the petitioner qua relief (iii) claiming regularization or work

¶25

charge status from 1989 on completion of 10 years of daily wage service is concerned, the Reply-Affidavit specifically stated that all daily wagers who had completed 10 years or more daily wage service as on 31.12.1993 were to be granted work charge status from 01.01.1994 only. In this backdrop, the prayer of the petitioner for giving him work charge status from the date he completed 10 years of daily wage service from 1989 is not tenable but the claim for work charged

¶26

status from the date of completion of 10 years of continuous daily waged service w.e.f. 01.01.1994

¶27

has merit and is granted, in view of the mandate

¶28

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶29

Mool Raj Upadhyaya versus State of Himachal

¶30

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶31

5 -

¶32

Pradesh & Ors . 1994 Supp (2) SCC 316 .

¶33

3(ii). So far as the claim of the petitioner

¶34

for retiral benefits including pension is concerned, the State Authorities have averred in Para 6(iv) of the Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioner took voluntary retirement from Government service w.e.f. 31.05.2012 on domestic grounds. ReplyAffidavit further states that case of the petitioner for pension was sent to Accountant General on 27.07.2012, but was returned on 12.09.2012 with the remarks that in terms of Notification dated 16.03.2012, [Annexure R-2], benefit of pension upon premature retirement is admissible on completion of 20 years of service. Reply-Affidavit indicates that though the pensionary benefits are admissible on completion of 20 years of qualifying service upon voluntary/premature retirement but since petitioner has rendered the regular service of 18 years and 5 months, therefore, he is not entitled for pensionary benefits under the aforesaid orders.

¶35

3(iii). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that the

¶36

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶37

6 -

¶38

petitioner was regularized on 15.12.1994 and the present petition was filed after a lapse of 21 years. It was further averred that even after his premature retirement from service, the present petition has been filed after a delay of 3 years. With the aforesaid averments, a prayer was made for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶39

SEPARATE REPLY BY RESPONDENT No 5- ACCOUNTANT GENERAL :

¶40

4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Respondent No.5-Accountant General filed separate reply, stating therein that in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Premature Retirement], Rules notified on 16.03.2012 and the first proviso to Rule 3(2) of the said Rules, the retiral benefits including pension is admissible on completion of 20 years of service and since the petitioner has rendered only 18 years and 5 months of service, therefore, in accordance with first proviso to Rule 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Premature Retirement], Rules dated 16.03.2012, [Annexure R-2] the petitioner was not eligible for

¶41

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶42

7 -

¶43

grant of pension. However, Para 2 of Reply-Affidavit states that State Government issued a clarification on 09.07.2012, entitling those employees for pro-rata

¶44

pension, even if, they have rendered less than 20 years of service only to those employees who retired prior to 16.03.2012 and since the petitioner had retired on voluntary retirement on 31.05.2012,

¶45

after the cut-off date 16.03.2012, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for pension even as per the clarification issued by the State Government on 09.12.2012, as referred to above.

¶46

5. Heard, Mr. Surender Kumar Sharma,

¶47

Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Lokender Pal Thakur, Learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondent No.5.

¶48

ANALYSIS:

¶49

6. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that

¶50

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶51

8 -

¶52

rejection orders dated 24.09.2012, [Annexure A-3] , denying the retiral benefits including pension to the petitioner, in view of his ineligibility for pension, for not having rendered the minimum 20 years of service in terms of the Notification dated 16.03.2012, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, for the following reasons :

¶53

6(i). For convenience sake, the Notification dated 16.03.2012 issued by the State Authorities, mandating admissibility for pension, upon voluntary /premature retirement from service of Government, reads as under:

¶54

“Government of Himachal Pradesh

¶55

Department of Personnel (Appointment-II)

¶56

No. Per(AP-B)B(18)-1/2006 Dated Shimla-2, the

¶57

16^th March, 2012. NOTIFICATION

¶58

In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules,

¶59

1976, namely:-

¶60

Short title and (1)	These rules may be called the Himachal
Commencement	Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) (Eighth-Amendment) Rules, 2012.
(2)	These rules shall come into force from the date of publication in the Rajpatra,Himachal Pradesh.
Amendment in first proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3	In the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1976, in first proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3, the words and figures

¶61

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶62

9 -

¶63

“or 45 years of age”, appearing after the words and figures “on completion of 20 years of service” but before the words “after such notice shall be deleted. By order -SdChief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh

¶64

6(ii). Once the Notification dated 16.03.2012 [Annexure R-2] mandates the eligibility for pension, in case of voluntary/premature retirement only

¶65

upon completion of 20 years of service and the petitioner has rendered 18 years and 5 months of regular service, therefore, the petitioner being ineligible has no right to claim pension dehors the first proviso to Rule 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services [Premature Retirement] Rules, as amended on 16.03.2012, [Annexure R-2] (supra).

¶66

6(iii). Right to pension flows from the statutory rules. Right of an employee for pension for past service rendered has to be tested in the context

¶67

of the eligibility of an employee for pension, upon

¶68

his voluntary retirement/premature retirement or

¶69

upon superannuation in the normal course. In

¶70

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶71

10 -

¶72

instant case, once as per first proviso to Rule 3(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services

¶73

[Premature Retirement] as amended on 16.03.2012, [Annexure R-2], the petitioner was to attain eligibility for pension upon completion of 20 years of service but, the petitioner had rendered only 18 years and 5 months of service, therefore, the petitioner being ineligible, has no right nor locus to seek pension dehors the statutory provision, as referred to above. In these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner for pension is not tenable, on facts as well as law.

¶74

6(iv). At this stage, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has rendered 16 years as daily waged service from 21.12.1978 till his regularization on 15.12.1994 and he retired from service on 31.05.2012 after rendering 18 years and 5 months of regular service. In this backdrop, Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that respondents have granted regularization

¶75

after 16 years of service w.e.f. 15.12.1994 whereas,

¶76

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶77

11 -

¶78

in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Raj Upadhyaya (supra), the petitioner was entitled for work charged status on completion of 10 years of daily waged service w.e.f. 01.01.1994. Upon antedating/grant of work charge status from 01.01.1994 and by taking into account, the period of service rendered from grant of work charged status, which was followed by regularization till superannuation, entire service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1994 till his regularization on 15.12.1994 and thereafter till superannuation on 31.05.2012, comes 19 years and 5 months of regular service.

¶79

6(v). Learned Counsel further submits that as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh versus Sunder Singh [Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 ] reiterated in the case of Balo Devi versus State of Himachal

¶80

Pradesh [ Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, decided on18.07.2022], once the Class-IV Employees have

¶81

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶82

12 -

¶83

rendered work charged service/ regular service and have rendered daily waged service then, benefit of proportionate weightage equal to 1 year regular service in lieu of 5 years of daily wage service was admissible and based on work charged/ regular service and regular service based on the weightage for daily waged service, the Class-III Employees have been held entitled for pension by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Roop Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others [ LPA No. 196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023] and even the SLP(C) 1007/2025 stands dismissed.

¶84

Notably, the petitioner has not laid any foundation for giving the weightage for counting of two or more years of regular service in lieu of continuous daily waged service {of 16 years} as per the principles laid down in case of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and Roop Lal [supra] . In absence of any foundational pleadings, this Court, is unable to accept such a plea, for the reason

¶85

13 - ( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶86

that entertaining and accepting such plea shall take the State Authorities by surprise, leading to the violation of principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated such practice, in 2025 SCC Online SC 2118 titled as P. Radhakrishnan and another versus Cochin Devaswom Board and others , in the following terms :

¶87

“20. We are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in passing the directions extracted at Para 3 hereinabove. The directions were far beyond the scope of the writ petition. The appellants could not have been rendered worse off in their own writ petition. What is more, the directions have been made without putting the appellants on notice .

¶88

It is well settled that if an exceptional case the Court feels the need to travel beyond the scope of the writ petition and make observations, the least a party is entitled to is an opportunity to explain and defend themselves .”

¶89

Faced with this situation, at this stage,

¶90

Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for liberty to make representation for asserting a

¶91

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶92

14 -

¶93

claim for pension on the basis of proportionate equality, based on weightage for daily wage service towards regular service. Aforesaid prayer is not disputed by Learned State Counsel also. Accordingly prayer, having not been opposed, is accepted with liberty.

¶94

7. Besides the above, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has rendered about 15-16 years of daily waged service and 19 years and 5 months of work charge/ regular service, which is countable for pension and in these circumstances, even if there is any short fall vis-à-vis requirement of 20 years of service, so as to earn pension then also, the petitioner is entitled to be granted relaxation in terms of Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which reads as under:

¶95

“ 88. Power to relax

¶96

Where any Ministry or Department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules, causes undue hardship in any particular case, the Ministry or Department, as the case may be, may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such

¶97

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶98

15 -

¶99

exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner:

¶100

Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms.”

¶101

In backdrop of Rule 88 supra, Learned

¶102

Counsel for the petitioner states that this Court

¶103

may direct the respondent to relax the Rules,

¶104

so as to enable the petitioner to be entitled for pension under the HP Civil Service (Premature Retirement) Rules and the CCS (Pension) Rules. Admittedly, since the relaxation, is to be granted

¶105

subject to satisfaction of Ministry or Department and that too in case of “undue hardship” and

¶106

for “recording of reasons” therefore, this Court refrains from mandating or passing directions to

¶107

the State Authorities to grant relaxation, if any, in favour of the petitioner, in these proceedings, for the reason, that the power of relaxation is invokable, upon satisfaction of hardship, in case operation of any these rules causes undue hardship and that too, by recording reasons in writing before dispensing with or relaxing any such

¶108

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶109

16 -

¶110

provision of the Rules, so as to make the operation of the Rules just and practicable in favour of an employee. The discretion to relax right vested in the State Government cannot be exercised by this Court, unless, there is any material to show that a request for relaxation was made which was either not considered or was inappropriately ignored by the State Authorities. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that he has not made any such request seeking relaxation as in Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. He further submits that liberty may be granted to him to approach the State Authorities, for seeking relaxation so as to consider /examine his case for grant of pension in the fact-situation of instant case, in view of the fact that the petitioner retired from Government Service on 31.05.2012 after rendering 16 years of daily waged service and more than 19 years 5 months of work charged, which was followed by regular service and when entire service is

¶111

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶112

17 -

¶113

countable for pension. In these circumstances, taking into account the statement so made by Learned Counsel for petitioner and in background of Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, this Court reserves liberty in favour of the petitioner make an appropriate representation for seeking relaxation, which shall be considered by State Authorities hereinafter, inaccordance with law.

¶114

DIRECTIONS:

¶115

8. In view of the above discussion

¶116

for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of, in following terms :-

¶117

“(i) In present scenario, at this stage; Annexure A-3, dated 24.09.2012 denying pension for want of completion 20 years of service in terms of first proviso to Rule 3(2) of HPCS [Premature Retirement] Rules as amended on 16.03.2012, [Annexure R-2], does not suffer from any infirmity/illegality;

¶118

(ii) Respondents-State Authorities are directed to extend the benefit of work charge status to the petitioner as Fitter [Class-III] from the date he completes 10 years of continuous service from 01.01.1994 and upon regularization

¶119

( 2025:HHC:34728 )

¶120

18 -

¶121

on 15.12.1994 till retirement on 31.12.2012 for pension, in accordance with law;

¶122

(iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make representation, seeking relaxation in terms of Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and/or for benefit of service as per judgment in the case of Roop Lal (supra) for admissibility of pension, in accordance with law, within six weeks from today;

¶123

(iv). Needless to say, that upon acceptance of representation, the necessary pension be sanctioned and admissible benefits be released notionally from due date i.e. 31.01.2012 and actual monetary benefits be released from filing petition on 4.12.2015 thereafter, in accordance with law;

¶124

(v). Parties to bear respective costs.

¶125

In aforesaid terms, the instant petition

¶126

is disposed of and all pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶127

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge 8^th October, 2025 [himani]

Prithvi Singh v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithvi Singh v. State of Hp

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

Manoj Kumar Vs Hrtc

Sahi Ram Vs State of Hp

Sahi Ram Vs State of Hp

Pawan Kumar and Ors. Vs State of H.P

Saran Dass and Ors. Vs State of Hp

Sudarshna Devi Vs State of Hp