Chhaila Devi and Another vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—The Petitioners by means of this writ petition have prayed for the grant of the following amongst other reliefs:

i) That the order passed by Respondent No. 2 Vide Annexure P-1 dated 27.09.2007 may be quashed and set-aside.

ii) That the Respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of regular service of deceased Prakash Chand w.e.f. 1.1.2000 and may also be considered in employment uptill the date of death i.e. 7.01.2008.

iii) That the Respondents may further be directed to grant the benefit of family pension in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 and alternatively the benefit of judgment passed by Sarab Dayal v. State of H.P. may be extended in favour of the Petitioner No. 1 w.e.f. 7.1.2008 alongwith interest @ 15% till realization.

iv) That the Respondents may very kindly be directed to release the pay of the deceased w.e.f. 1.10.2007 upto 7.1.2008 alongwith interest @ 15% till realization.

The main grievance of the Petitioners is that late Shri Prakash Chand, husband of Petitioner No. 1 and father of Petitioner No. 2, was wrongly retired on 30.09.2007 and should have been retired only on 30.09.2009 on attaining the age of 60 years. The second prayer is that in case he was deemed to be in service till the age of 60 years then on his death on 7.1.2008 he would have been in service and Petitioner No. 2 would have been entitled to employment on compassionate ground. The third prayer is that pensionary benefits be given to the Petitioner No. 1 in respect of the death of her husband in accordance with the judgment of this Court rendered in State of H.P and Ors. v. Sarab Dayal, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 1292.

As far as the first prayer is concerned a Division Bench of this Court in Krishan Chand v. State of H.P. and Anr. Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 414, has clearly held that the policy of retiring such persons on attaining the age of 58 years cannot be said to be illegal and therefore, this relief cannot be granted to the Petitioners.

As a consequence of the aforesaid, the father of the Petitioner was properly retired on 30.09.2007 and on the date of his death i.e. 7.1.2008 he was not in employment. Therefore, the case of Petitioner No. 2 is not covered for grant of compassionate employment. In case, the Petitioner makes any representation to the Respondents in this behalf that shall be considered in accordance with law.

As far as the third relief is concerned, the Petitioner is entitled to the same. Shri Prakash Chand was initially engaged as Beldar in the year 1991 and completed more than 240 days in every year as per the mandays chart Ext. R-I and therefore, was entitled to grant of work charge status/regularization on 1.1.2001. It is also averred that he was in fact granted such work charge status from the said date. Therefore, he rendered 10 years service on daily wage basis and 6 years and 9 months as regular service. According to the judgment rendered in Sarab Dayal''s case (supra) 50% of the continuous service daily waged service has to be counted for calculating the qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits. Therefore, the Petitioner would be deemed to have 11 years and 9 months qualifying service. The State is accordingly directed to grant all retiral benefits including pension by taking his qualifying service as 11 years and 9 months.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed and the Respondent-State is directed to grant pension and other retiral benefits to Petitioner No. 1 in respect of the services of her husband by taking his qualifying service as 11 years and 9 months. The entire arrears in this regard be paid to the Petitioner latest by 31st October, 2011 alongwith interest @ 6% per annum failing which the Respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.