Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 506 (HP)

Uttam Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2025-03-26

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner has not been granted due arrears of pension, hence, he has instituted this writ petition. 2. Factual matrix:- 2(i). Petitioner was appointed as Chainman on daily wage basis on 23.03.1992 in Kangra Division. His services were regularized as Chainman on 29.06.2007. 2(ii). Petitioner instituted CWP No.732 of 2011, claiming work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002. The writ petition was decided on 25.02.2011 with a direction to the respondents to look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law adverting to the submissions made by the petitioner in his representation. 2(iii). Respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide office order dated 09.01.2012, conferred upon him work charge status w.e.f. 01.04.2002, however, such conferment was made on notional basis. Petitioner then instituted Civil Writ Petition No.9596 of 2012 for grant of work charge status on actual basis and for release of actual monetary benefits. The aforesaid writ petition was decided as T.A. No.3520 of 2015 by the erstwhile learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 26.08.2015. Consequently, the petitioner was granted work charge status on actual basis by the respondents under office order dated 21.10.2016. The financial benefits to him were allowed from three years prior to the date of filing of the petition as per verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Dev Gupta Verus State of H.P., AIR 1998 SC 2819 . In the meanwhile, the petitioner superannuated from service on 31.03.2012. 2(iv). Petitioner had put in work charge service w.e.f. 01.04.2002 to 28.06.2007 and regular service from 29.06.2007 to 31.03.2012. The total service rendered by the petitioner on work charge and regular basis comes to ten years. 2(v). The respondents had not released pension to the petitioner as work charge service rendered by him was not being counted towards pension. Petitioner now instituted O.A. No.2904 of 2017 before the erstwhile learned Tribunal, seeking directions to the respondents to count the work charge service rendered by him towards pensionary benefits. The original application was allowed on 10.01.2018. The respondents were directed to count the work charge service rendered by the petitioner towards pensionary benefits and to grant pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner within two months. 2(vi). The respondents assailed the aforesaid decision before this Court in CWP No.2882 of 2018. The writ petition was dismissed on 07.12.2018. The original application was allowed on 10.01.2018. The respondents were directed to count the work charge service rendered by the petitioner towards pensionary benefits and to grant pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner within two months. 2(vi). The respondents assailed the aforesaid decision before this Court in CWP No.2882 of 2018. The writ petition was dismissed on 07.12.2018. Despite the dismissal of their writ petition, the respondents did not release pension to the petitioner. He then instituted a contempt petition, bearing COPC(T) No.494 of 2020. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondents released pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018. Taking note of the same, the contempt petition was disposed of on 21.07.2020. The contention of the petitioner was noticed in the judgment that the petitioner was entitled to pension w.e.f. 31.03.2012, i.e. the date of his superannuation. The contempt proceedings were closed in view of release of pension to him. Liberty was, however, reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law for the redressal of his surviving grievances, i.e. arrears of pension. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking arrears of pension w.e.f. 01.04.2012. 3. Submissions:- 3(i). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to arrears of pension with effect from three years prior to filing of O.A. No.2904 of 2017. In the aforesaid original application, the petitioner had prayed for counting work charge service rendered by him towards pensionary benefits. 3(ii). Learned Deputy Advocate General on the strength of the reply filed by the respondents submits that in view of the law laid down in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018, the respondents had justly released pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018. 4. I am afraid the defence of the respondents has no basis. It is incorrect on part of respondents to suggest that petitioner was released pension on the strength of the decision in Sunder Singh’s (supra) case by counting his daily wage service in terms of mechanism provided in the judgment. Petitioner had been conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.04.2002 under office order dated 09.01.2012. The service rendered by the petitioner on work charge basis was liable to be counted towards pension. The respondents had denied this benefit to the petitioner. Petitioner had been conferred work charge status w.e.f. 01.04.2002 under office order dated 09.01.2012. The service rendered by the petitioner on work charge basis was liable to be counted towards pension. The respondents had denied this benefit to the petitioner. In the circumstances, he was compelled to institute O.A. No.2904 of 2017 on 20.05.2017. The petition was allowed on 10.01.2018. The respondents implemented the judgment and consequently, counted the service rendered by the petitioner on work charge basis towards his pension. Petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2012. The total period of service rendered by the petitioner on work charge basis as also on regular basis comes to ten years. On that basis, petitioner became eligible for grant of pension and was accordingly released pension. Petitioner’s eligibility to pension was thus independent of Sunder Singh’s (supra) decision. The respondents have wrongly invoked the decision rendered in Sunder Singh’s (supra) case for restricting pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2018. The petitioner is certainly entitled to arrears of pension for a period of three years prior to his instituting O.A. No.2904 of 2017, as claimed by him. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release arrears of pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 20.05.2014, i.e. three years prior to the date of institution of O.A. No.2904 of 2017 by him. This be done within a period of six weeks from today, failing which the amount payable shall carry interest @ 5% per annum from the due date. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.