Contractual Service Prior To Regularization Qualifies For Pension & Annual Increments Under CCS Pension Rules: Himachal Pradesh HC
A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh HC comprising of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, while deciding writ petition held that contractual service preceding regularization qualifies as service for pensionary benefits & annual increments under the CCS Pension Rules.
Background Facts
The respondent department initially appointed the petitioners as Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs) on contract basis and later regularized their appointment by appointing them on regular basis. But petitioners were not given pensionary benefits or annual increments for their service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the writ petition in Himachal Pradesh High Court.
The petitioners prayed that the State of Himachal Pradesh and other respondents be directed to treat their contractual service period as qualifying for pension according to the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972, and grant the benefit of the annual increment.
It was claimed by the petitioners that, as far as the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has laid down in Sheela Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, such service must be counted for pension under the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972, and for annual increments also. The petitioners stressed that their cases were similar to those previous cases, where the courts had ordered that such contractual service be counted for these purposes. They also pointed out that it would be gross injustice to them as the benefits which they should have qualified for will be denied if their contractual service is not considered.
The respondents, through the State of Himachal Pradesh, maintained that the service rendered by the petitioners on a contractual basis prior to their regularization cannot be treated as qualifying service for the purposes of pension or in the matter of annual increments.
Findings of the Court
The court relied upon various judgments of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. A Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Sheela Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, held that service of an employee appointed on contractual basis is liable to be counted as qualifying for grant of pension after regularization of the service.
In the case of Jagdish Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors alongwith connected matters, it was held by the court that all such contractual service rendered by the petitioners as Junior Basic Trained Teachers shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS Pension Rules 1972 in addition to annual increments.
In the case of Prabha Kanwar through her legal heirs vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, it was held by the court that the persons initially appointed on contract basis as lecturers and later on regularized, were entitled to count the period of their contractual services for the purpose of pensionary benefits and annual increments.
In Satish Kumar Banyal & Ors vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. the Division Bench considered the appeal preferred against a judgment where the relief of annual increments for the services rendered on contractual basis was declined to the appellants. Here the appellants were held entitled to the grant of annual increments by counting their contractual service.
It was noted by the court that the judgments had clearly laid down the principle that any contractual employment before regularization should count as qualifying service for pension under Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 and for the purpose of annual increments.
It was held by the court that the petitioners are entitled for counting of the contractual services rendered by them prior to their regularization, as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the CCS Pension Rules 1972 and also for grant of annual increments. It was directed by the court to respondents to complete this exercise within a period of six weeks.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case No. : CWP Nos. 11684, 11685, 11686 & 11688/2024
Counsel for the Petitioner : Vikas Rajput, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents : L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General