Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/3206/2020 on 30 December 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 3206 of 2020
Decided on: 30.12.2022
Smt. Meera Mandhotra
.…Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.
For the respondents: M/s Sumesh Raj, Dinesh Thakur and Arvind Sharma, Additional Advocate Generals.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i)
A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 20.4.1988 to 8.7.2004 as qualifying service for the purpose of pension to the petitioner as per CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and also to hold the petitioner entitled to subscription of GPF, in the interest of justice.”
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) on 20.04.1988 on ad hoc basis and subsequently her services were regularized as such w.e.f. 08.07.2004. According to the petitioner, she served the respondents w.e.f. 20.04.1988 to 08.07.2004 without any interruption or break. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in terms of the law as has been declared by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others, LPA No. 36 of 2010, decided on 15th July, 2010, ends of justice will be served in case this petition is disposed of with the direction that the ad hoc service which has been rendered by the petitioner before her services were regularized as Junior Basic Teacher be also taken in to consideration for the purpose of pension.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the request made by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that as the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 08.07.2004, therefore, she is not entitled for pensionary benefits and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents on record as also the judgment, dated 15th July, 2010, passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 36 of 2010, titled as Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner at least is entitled for issuance of a direction to the respondents that service rendered by her on ad hoc basis be also treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Whether or not the petitioner is entitled for pension is not being adjudicated by this Court, but in case she is entitled for any post superannuation relief which is dependent upon the number of years of service put in by the petitioner, then, obviously the period of ad hoc service should also come to her assistance.
5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the services rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis as a Junior Basic Teacher, i.e., w.e.f. 20.04.1988 to 08.07.2004 be also treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension or for any post superannuation benefits that she may be entitled to, which are based upon the length of service rendered by the petitioner with the respondent-Department. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
December 30, 2022 (bhupender)