Bant Ram And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

y way of this petition, the petitioners have primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-

“That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to count the services rendered by the petitioners on contract basis prior to their regularisation as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and for the purpose of annual increments, in the interest of justice.”

The case of the petitioners is that they were initially appointed as Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs), on different dates, as stands reflected in the petition primarily in the years between 1996 to 1999. Thereafter, their services were regularized by granting them a special JBT certificate. Their prayer is that the period of service rendered by them on contract basis before their regularization, be counted for the purpose of pension etc.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this issue is no more res integra. He referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in CWPOA No. 5187 of 2020, titled as Sunil Dutt and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, and other connected matters, decided on 29.08.2023, and submitted that after placing reliance on the previous judgments passed by this Court, the petitioners therein, who were also teachers, initially appointed as JBT on contract basis, followed by regularisation of their services by granting them special JBT certificates, have been granted the relief with the direction that the period of their contract service shall be counted for the purpose of pensionary benefits. This has not been disputed by the State.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the period of service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis, followed by regularization, shall be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

As far as the prayer of some of the petitioners for grant of annual increments for the services rendered on contract basis is concerned, this Court is rejecting this prayer in view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi, SLP( c) No. 10399 of 2020, wherein in para-9, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to categorically hold that “it is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account.”

It is clarified that as far as those employees who stand superannuated, the monetary benefits shall be confined to three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition, however, if their date of superannuation does not precedes three years from the date of filing of the writ petition, then the actual benefits shall accrue as from the date of superannuation of the employee. The pension payable to the petitioners shall be in terms of the option exercised by them or which may be exercised by them in terms of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Sheela Devi (supra).

The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.