Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1163 (HP)

Lachhman Dass v. State of H. P through Secretary

2011-03-10

V.K.SHARMA

body2011
JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, Judge The petition has been filed on the following prayer: “That the present Original application may kindly be allowed and respondent State be directed to grant pensionery benefits to the applicant from the date of his retirement alongwith interest at the Nationalized Bank’s rate by computing the service rendered by the applicant on daily wage basis.” 2. In reply, respondents No. 1 & 2 have taken the following stand vide para 3 6(i) and 6(iii) and 7: Para: 3 “That the contents of this Para are not admitted, hence denied. Factual position of the case has been explained in preliminary submission. However, it is submitted that the applicant was initially engaged as beldar on daily wages basis during the month July, 1980 instead of 1979 in Una sub division No.1, H.P.P.W.D., Una under the control of Executive Engineer, Una Division (B&R) H.P.P.W.D, Una. The service of the applicant was regularized w.e.f 1.1.1994 as beldar work charged in the pay scale of Rs.770-1410 vide Executive Engineer, Una Divisiion (B &R) H.P.P.W.D., Una office order No. PWU/E-7/94-12808-12 dated 5/12/1994 (Annexure R-II) and applicant had joined his duties on 15.12.1994 in Una Sub-Division No.1, H.P.P.W.D Una. The applicant was retired from the Govt. service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e 60 (sixty) years i.e on 30.6.1999 (AN) (Annexure R-III). The applicant had rendered service as work charged balder for 5 (five) years and 6(months) which is less by 4 (four) and half year to qualify for pension purposes as work charged therefore the applicant is not entitled for pensionary benefits. Para 6(i) That the contents of this para are not admitted hence denied. The factual facts of the case have been explained in the preliminary submissioin. However, it is submitted that the applicant had been initially engaged as beldar on daily wage basis during the month of July 1980 instead of 1978 in Una Division HPPWD Una. The service of the applicant was regularized as work charged beldar with retrospective effect i.e w.e.f 1.1.1994 in the pay scale of Rs. 770-1410 vide Executive Engineer, Una Division (B&R) HPPWD, Una office order No.PWU/B-7/94-12808-12 dated 15.12.1994 and the applicant had joined this duty on 15.12.1994 (F.N) in Una sub-division No.1, HPPWD., Una, when the said post was sanctioned by the Govt. as per the policy framed by the H.P Govt. 770-1410 vide Executive Engineer, Una Division (B&R) HPPWD, Una office order No.PWU/B-7/94-12808-12 dated 15.12.1994 and the applicant had joined this duty on 15.12.1994 (F.N) in Una sub-division No.1, HPPWD., Una, when the said post was sanctioned by the Govt. as per the policy framed by the H.P Govt. for regularization of daily waged worker who had worked for 10 years or more with minimum 240 days in each calendar year. The said policy was approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Mool Raj Upadhaya’s Vs. state of H.P in the year 1994 and thereafter the regularization of the daily wage workers is done in phased manner as per the aforesaid policy strictly on the basis of seniority vis a vis sanctioned posts. iii) “That the contents of this para are not admitted, hence denied, the applicant had never approached the respondent department for the pensionary benefits before the time of his retirement, moreover the applicant is not entitled for pensionary benefits, as he had rendered only 5 (five) and 6 months of regular service whereas for the pensionary benefits, one has to qualify 10 years of regular service for claiming his pensiionary benefits. The applicant in the present case before his regularization, had worked as daily waaged worker. As amply made clear in the preliminary submission para 4 and 5 his service rendered on daily waged basis can not be counted towards pensionary benefits. As per provisions of rule-49 (i)CCS pension rule1972, he was only entitled for service gratuity amounting to Rs. 27,572/- which stands paid to him. vii) That the applicant has since been regularized w.e.f 1.1.94 as per the aforesaid Govt. policy and was given appointment against temporary post of work charged beldar. Thereafter the applicant has completed 5 years and 6 months of service on Work Charged basis prior to his retirement from the services on 30.6.1999 (AN) upon attaining the age of superannuation of 60 years. The grant of pensionary benefits are governed under CCS(Pensiion)Rules-1972, as the applicant neither fulfills the conditions as provided under the CCS (Temp) services rules-1965 nor CCS pension Rule1972 of minimum 10 Years of regular service for claiming the benefits of pensions. The grant of pensionary benefits are governed under CCS(Pensiion)Rules-1972, as the applicant neither fulfills the conditions as provided under the CCS (Temp) services rules-1965 nor CCS pension Rule1972 of minimum 10 Years of regular service for claiming the benefits of pensions. Allk the benefits to which the applicants found entitled under the said Rules- after his retirement on 30.6.1999 have since already granted and paid to him by the respondent as stated in para 4 of preliminary submission. 3. The following averments have been set up on behalf of respondent No.3 vide para 6 of the reply: “ In reply to this para it is respectfully submitted that the Replying Respondent has not received the pension case of the applicant so far. However, as pension case of the applicant so far. However, as per O.A. it has been averred by the applicant itself that he was regularized in service w.e.f 1.1.1994 and retired from Govt. service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f 30.6.1999. Thus, qualifying service of applicant is less than 10 years, hence applicant is not eligible and entitled to superannuation pension in terms of Rule 49 of C.C.S (P) Rules, 1972 under which minimum qualifying regular service for pension is 10 years. The applicant is entitled to terminal benefits under C.C.S (Temporary) Rules to be decided by the Respondent department at their level. Regarding counting of Daily Wages service towards pensionary benefits, it is an administrative matter to be decided by the administrative Deptt./Govt. of H.P. However, Government of H.P vide its order dated 18.3.2004 (copy enclosed as annexure R-1) has clarified that casual anddaily rated employmentare not covered under C.C.S (P) Rules, 1972 for pensionary benefits. At present there is no action on the part of the Replying Respondent. Rest of the averments need no comments.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under a judgment rendered by a Division bench of this Court in State of H.P Vs. Sarab Dayal, reported in 2007 (Suppl.) Current Law Journal (H.P.) 505. 5. Rest of the averments need no comments.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under a judgment rendered by a Division bench of this Court in State of H.P Vs. Sarab Dayal, reported in 2007 (Suppl.) Current Law Journal (H.P.) 505. 5. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid judgment and he is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said judgment shall be extended to him, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner, subject to the outcome of the S.LP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP(s), if any.