Service Provided For Period Of Three Months And Above Shall Be Treated As One Half Year For The Purpose Of Calculating Total Service Period: Himachal Pradesh High Court

A division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge, while deciding Letters Patent Appeal in the case of UCO Bank & Ors. vs Chaman Singh, has held that service provided by an employee for the period of three months and above shall be treated as one half year (6 months) for the purpose of calculating total service period.

Background Facts

Chaman Singh (Respondent) rendered 9 years & 10 months of service for the UCO Bank (Appellant). The Rule 14 of the UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 prescribed condition of rendering minimum 10 years of service for an employee to qualify for pension. Also Rule 18 of the regulations provided if service period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. But proviso to this rule states that Rule 18 shall not apply for calculating total service period, required to make an employee eligible for pension.

The appellant denied the pensionary benefits to the respondent on the ground that respondent did not meet the minimum requirement of 10 years of service. Aggrieved by the same, respondent filed a writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent satisfied the required 10 years of qualifying service to be eligible for pension laid down in Rule 14. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and appellant-bank was directed to release the pensionary dues payable to the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant bank filed the letters patent appeal.

The appellant contended that the proviso to Rule 18 takes away the right of the respondent for counting the 9 years & 10 months service period as 10 years, which was required for pension. On the other hand, it was contended by the Respondent that he had completed 10 years of service as per Rule 18, thus making him eligible for pension.

Findings of the Court

The court observed that as per Rule 18, if in a given case, service rendered is for more than 6 months, then that had to be treated as 1 complete year. The respondent provided 9 years & 10 months of service, therefore, 10 months of service had to be treated as 1 complete year.

The court relied on the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Bachittar Singh wherein the Himachal Pradesh High Court interpreted Rule 49(3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, which states that the service period of three months and above shall be treated as a half year.

The court observed that the respondent who had provided service of 9 years & 10 months, was qualified for pensionary benefits as out of 10 months of service, there was one half year (6 months) and remaining 4 months were also to be treated as another half year as per CCS Rules, overall making it complete one year of service. So the court held that service rendered by the respondent had to be considered as 10 years on the date of his retirement.

The court further rejected the contention of the appellant and held that a proviso cannot take away the rights conferred by the substantive provision. The court relied on the case of Rohitash Kumar & Ors vs. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. wherein the Supreme Court held that the proviso cannot be interpreted in a manner that would nullify the provision, or take away a right that has been conferred by the statute.

The court held that the respondent was qualified for pension as his total service in terms of Rule 18 became 10 years.

With the aforesaid observations, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed.

Case No. : LPA No. 96/2021

Case Title: UCO Bank & Ors. vs Chaman Singh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 12

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Prem P. Chauhan, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order