Jeet Kaur Sharma vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr

Sandeep Sharma, J

By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

"That the respondents may kindly be directed to forward the applicant's pension papers under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 considering her appointment w.e.f. 14.10.1998

That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the financial benefits to the applicant w.e.f. 31.12.2008 to 23.12.2009."

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner was appointed as Lecturer Political Science on contract basis on 14.10.1998 and thereafter, on 23.10.2009, services of the petitioner were regularized with the Department w.e.f. 31.12.2008. It is also not in dispute that petitioner from the date of her initial appointment on 14.10.1998 continued to serve the department uninterruptedly without there being any break till her regularization.

Precisely, the claim of the petitioner is that services rendered by her w.e.f. 14.10.1998 as Lecturer Political Science on contract basis till her regularization on 23.10.2009 are required to be taken into consideration by the department while computing qualifying service for the purpose of consequential benefits i.e. pensionary benefits and annual increment etc.

Parties are ad-idem that aforesaid question has been elaborately dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court vide 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 even 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.

In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has already held that no discrimination can be made qua the employees, who rendered services prior to regularization in the capacity of contractual employees and were regularized only because they had put in the requisite number of years of service on contractual basis like their counterparts who had rendered services in the capacity of work charged employees, contingency paid fund employees or non-pensionable establishment, of course, for that matter even on ad-hoc basis

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, 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 Smt. Sheela Devi's Case.

Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, present petition is allowed making the directions in Smt. Sheela Devi's Case (supra) mutatis mutandi applicable, also to the present petition. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.