Suman Rana vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:-

“That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the services rendered by the applicant on contract basis w.e.f. from the date of appointment on contract basis to the date of regularization as qualifying services of the applicant for the purpose of pension in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in case of Veena Dei vs. HPSEB ltd. in VWP No. 5400/2014, decided on 21.11.2014, and further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide its judgment dated 26.10.2015 in SLP ( C ) No. 18898/2015 titled as H.P. State Electricity Board versus Veena Devi and Narender Singh Naik in CWP(T) No. 6785/2008, decided on 14.09.2010, in the interest of justice.”

The case of the petitioner is that she was initially appointed as Junior Basic Teachers (JBTs), on 05.03.1997. Thereafter, her services were regularized on 13.07.2006, by granting her a special JBT certificate. The prayer of the petitioner is that the period of service rendered by her on contract basis before regularization, be counted for the purpose of pension etc.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner on contract basis, followed by regularization, shall be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension.

As far as the prayer of the petitioner 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.