Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 513 (HP)

Gagan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2023-12-12

RANJAN SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 3. Mr. Chitranjan K. Sharma, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.4. 2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts as borne out from the pleadings. 3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the following prayer(s):- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count service as qualifying service of petitioner towards pension with effect from 31.03.2012 from the date granted daily wages status followed by regularization without interruption and consequently he may be held entitled to pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, with all consequential benefits; (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of Apex Court Judgment in Bego Devi Vs. State of HP, reported in Latest HLJ 2022 (Vol-II) (HP) 817 to the petitioner. Consequently, he may be held entitled pensionary benefits, with all consequential benefits.” 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially engaged as a part-time Water Carrier in September, 1997. His services were converted as a Daily Wager on 06/10.12.2012 and he joined as same at Government Primary School, Chawla Depalion. His services were subsequently regularized in October, 2016 and is due for superannuation on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.01.2024, after rendering seven years and three months of regular service. 5. The petitioner claims pension w.e.f. 01.012018 by giving the benefit of the weightage of Daily Wage Services in lieu of regular service and the regular service for pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh Versus Sunder Singh, which was further clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Balo Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. i.e. latest HLJ 2022 HP (II) 817. 6. For claiming pension, as aforesaid, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation to Respondent No.2-Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, on 02.10.2023 (Annexure P-3), which is stated to be pending. 7. Per contra, Mr. i.e. latest HLJ 2022 HP (II) 817. 6. For claiming pension, as aforesaid, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation to Respondent No.2-Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, on 02.10.2023 (Annexure P-3), which is stated to be pending. 7. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned State Counsel, submits that the factual aspects regarding the entitlement and eligibility of the petitioner in terms of the judgment in case of Balo Devi (supra) needs to be scrutinized and examined. 8. In the entirety of the facts referred to above, this Court directs the Respondent No.2-Director of Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh to consider/examine the representation dated 02.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) and to pass appropriate orders after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner within six weeks from today. 9. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all questions of facts and law are left open. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.