Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1495 (HP)

Ram son of Shri Bhagat Ram v. State of H. P.

2014-10-21

P.S.RANA

body2014
JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. Present civil writ petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India pleaded therein that petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis in the respondents department in Forest Division situated in Bilaspur District in the year 1988. It is pleaded that work charge status was granted to the petitioners after completion of ten years of daily wage service. It is further pleaded that services of petitioners were regularized by the respondents department in the year 2007 and petitioners worked as such till the year 2010. It is further pleaded that after completion of ten years regular service petitioners were entitled for pension as prescribed in CCS (Pension) Rules. It is pleaded that pension was not granted to petitioners by the respondents department. It is pleaded that petitioners retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation and despite eligibility of pension the pension was denied to petitioners by the respondents department. It is pleaded that respondents department be directed to grant pension to petitioners as per Clause 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules and further pleaded that respondents be also directed to grant benefit of gratuity. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 pleaded therein that petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis in the respondents department and they worked till their regularization. It is pleaded that on receipt of posts from State Government for regularization of daily waged workers their services were regularized on dated 19.9.2007 and petitioners retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation during the year 2010 after completing only about two and a half years regular service. It is pleaded that petitioners filed civil writ petition before this Court and as per order of the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. work charge status was granted to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and 1.1.1998 respectively. It is pleaded that petitioners have not completed required qualifying service for pension as prescribed under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and they are not entitled for pension benefits. It is pleaded that H.P. State Government vide letter No, FFE-A(B)19-2/2011 dated 30.11.2011 annexed as Annexure R-1 advised that daily wager who is conferred work charge status retrospectively is not entitled for grant of benefits under Assured Carrier Progression Scheme, Earned leave and medical leave etc. It is pleaded that H.P. State Government vide letter No, FFE-A(B)19-2/2011 dated 30.11.2011 annexed as Annexure R-1 advised that daily wager who is conferred work charge status retrospectively is not entitled for grant of benefits under Assured Carrier Progression Scheme, Earned leave and medical leave etc. It is pleaded that keeping in view above stated facts service rendered by petitioners on work charge basis could not be considered as regular service for grant of pensionary benefits as per CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. It is pleaded that present writ petition is not maintainable. It is pleaded that Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case titled as Jaswant Singh and others vs. Union of India and others (1979)4 SCC 440 held that employees of work charge are not entitled to service benefits as available to regular employees. It is pleaded that as per directions of Hon’ble High Court of H.P. the work charge was granted to petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and 1.1.1998 respectively and they have retired from government service in the year 2010 after putting two and a half years regular service. It is pleaded that as petitioners have not completed qualifying service for pension they are not entitled for any pensionary benefits as sought in relief clause of petition. Prayer for dismissal of civil writ petition sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents-State and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in this civil writ petition:- 1. Whether work charge service of petitioners will be counted for pensionary benefits and gratuity benefits, as alleged. Findings on point No.1 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that services of petitioners as work charge employees w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and 1.1.1998 will be counted for pensionary benefits is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 6167 of 2012 titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. and others decided on dated 6.3.2013 held that service rendered by petitioner as work charge employee should be counted towards qualifying service for pension. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh relied upon the ruling of Apex Court of India reported in (2010)4 SCC 317 titled Punjab State Electricity Board and another vs. Narata Singh and another. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh relied upon the ruling of Apex Court of India reported in (2010)4 SCC 317 titled Punjab State Electricity Board and another vs. Narata Singh and another. There is no document on record in order to prove that order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 6167 of 2012 titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. and others decided on dated 6.3.2013 was set aside in LPA by Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh or set aside in SLP by Apex Court of India. Order passed by Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 6167 of 2012 titled Sukru Ram vs. State of H.P. and others decided on 6.3.2013 has attained the stage of finality. 6. Submission of learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents that in view of letter No. FFE-A(B)19-2/2011 dated 30.11.2011 issued from Additional Chief Secretary (Forests) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh petitioners are not entitled for pensionary benefits is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that administrative order cannot override the judicial order. On the contrary it is well settled law that judicial order always overrides administrative order. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is answered in affirmative. 7. In view of above findings, it is held that (1) work charged service of petitioners will be counted towards qualifying service for grant of pension and thereafter pension of petitioners will be calculated in accordance with law payable to the petitioners. It is further held that order will be complied within a period of eight weeks from today. (2) It is held that petitioners will also be entitled for gratuity if not paid in accordance with law from the date of their regularization of service i.e. from dated 19.9.2007. Writ petition stands disposed of. All pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.