Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 385 (HP)

Mandeep Kumar v. State of H. P.

2011-02-21

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. 1. All the petitions are being disposed of by a common order since identical question of facts and law are involved. 2. By means of these petitions the petitioners have prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:- (a) That the action of the respondents to apply notification dated 17.08.2006 in case of applicant be held illegal and void ab initio and applicants may be held entitled for retiral benefits under Pension Rules, 1972. Respondents may be directed to allow applicants to subscribe towards GPF without insisting them to subscribed towards Contributory Pension Scheme under the impugned scheme. Further during the pendency of the original application if any action is taken by department to the detriment of the applicants they may be quashed and set-aside and applicants may be held entitled for the benefits under Pension Rules, 1972. (b) That the respondents may be directed to pay salary and allowances to the applicants for the period of training of 6 months of initial training with all consequential benefits. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent -State through the H.P. Subordin ate Service Selection Board invited application for filling up the vacant posts of Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari, which is a class-III post, as per the rules notified on 20th January, 2000. All the petitioners in these petitions applied for the said posts pursuant to the advertisement No. 3 of 2000. Thereafter, the petitioners were asked to appear in the interviews before the H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board. They were duly selected and on 21st December, 2001 letters were issued to the petitioners informing them that they had been selected for the post of Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari. They were asked to give an option as to in which district they wanted to serve since the said post is in a district cadre. Thereafter, in July 2002 letters of appointment were issued to the petitioners in which it was clearly stated that the petitioner (name given) was appointed as Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari in the department of Rural Development. It was further directed that for six months the appointee would be deputed for training before the concerned Block Development Officer in the concerned district. It was further directed that for six months the appointee would be deputed for training before the concerned Block Development Officer in the concerned district. It was also made clear that only after completion of requisite training of six months these persons would be appointed to the posts of Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari in the regular pay scale. For the period of training the petitioners were entitled to a stipend of Rs.700/- per month. Vide letter dated 13th February, 2003 the training period was extended from 6 months to 2 years and the stipend was fixed as Rs.700/- per month for the first year and Rs.1400/- per month for the second year. It is not disputed that regular appointment of the petitioners was made after completion of training on 7th January, 2005. 4. During this intervening period, the State in view of its financial constraints modified the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. The net effect of this was that pension was no longer available to the employees appointed after May, 2003 and they were only entitled to the benefit of Contributory Pension Scheme. The stand of the State is that since regular appointment of the petitioners was made after 15th May, 2003 their appointment is subject to the amended rules and the petitioners cannot be held entitled to the benefit of pension. On the other hand the claim of the petitioners is that they were selected and appointed prior to the amendment made in the pension rules on 15th May, 2003. Their allegation is that merely because they were kept on training during this period cannot nullify the appointment orders issued to them in the year 2001. A perusal of the initial orders dated December, 2001 clearly shows that the petitioners were selected after following proper procedure and following the due process of selection to the post of Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari. Thereafter, they were given an option of choosing their district cadre. Thereafter on July, 2002 office orders were issued appointing the petitioners as Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari but placing them on training for a period of six months. No doubt, this period of six months was later enlarged to two years but this training cannot nullify the order of appointment which had already been passed. Training was a step-in-aid after the appointment had been made. No doubt, this period of six months was later enlarged to two years but this training cannot nullify the order of appointment which had already been passed. Training was a step-in-aid after the appointment had been made. A perusal of the rules relating to the Gram Panchayat and Vikas Adhikari clearly shows that the said rules do not envisage any pre appointment training. The rules clearly lays down that 100% appointment to the said post shall be made by direct recruitment. This method has admittedly been followed. Under the garb of imparting training to the petitioners they cannot be told that their appointment commenced after training had been completed. They may have been kept on training and a stipend paid during the training period but the fact is that the duly constituted authority i.e. H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board had selected the petitioners and thereafter the appointing authority had issued letters of appointment and directed that they be sent on training. Therefore, their service will deem to have started from the date when they were issued these letters of appointment prior to their training. 5. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions are disposed of and the petitioners are directed to be treated as employees appointed prior to 15th May, 2003 with all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.