Bimla Devi vs State Of HP And Ors

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for following main relief:-

"i. For issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate order, directing the respondent to count the contract period service for the grant of pensionary benefits by allotting the GPF number instead of CPF number and other consequential benefits"

Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that case of the petitioners is squarely covered with judgment dated 26.12.2019, titled Smt. Sheela Devi v. State of HP and Ors in CWPOA No. 195 of 2019 (further followed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.1.2020 in CWP No. 3267 of 2019 titled Ram Krishan Sharma v. The Accountant General (A&E) HP and Ors), wherein it has been concluded that services rendered prior to regularization in any capacity, be it work-charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment have to be counted towards qualifying service even if such service is not preceded by temporary or regular appointment in a pensionable establishment.

Learned counsel placed reliance upon judgment 14.9.2010 dated passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 6785 of 2008 titled Narender Singh Naik v. State of HP and Ors (further upheld by the Division Bench of this court in LPA No. 271 of 2011), wherein respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for counting the period he has worked on contract basis till regularization with all consequential benefits in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Association v. State of Maharashtra and Ors (1990) 2 SCC 715.

Since question needs to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings has been elaborately dealt with and decided by the Division Bench of this court in Smt. Sheela Devi's Case supra and Narender Singh Naik's case, this Court sees no reason to go into this question again, especially when all the facts and relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition are identical to that of aforesaid case.

Consequently, In view of the above, the directions contained in the aforesaid judgments are ordered to be made mutatis mutandis applicable in the present case for all intents and purposes. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending application(s), if any.