Tek Chand vs State Of H.P. And Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

The facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petitioner are as under:-

The petitioner was appointed as a Beldar on daily wage basis in the Industries Department in the year 1990. Thereafter, his services were regularized as such w.e.f. 04.06.2003. The petitioner was conferred upon work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2000. He superannuated from the service in the year 2013.

Pension stands denied to the petitioner on the ground that his services were regularized after 15.05.2003, i.e. the cut of date post which the jobs in government sector in the State of Himachal Pradesh were made non-pensionable, therefore, as per respondents, the petitioner was also not entitled for grant of pension.

Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that as work charge status stood conferred upon the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2000, therefore, this period had to be taken into consideration for the purpose of coming to the conclusion as to whether the petitioner was entitled for pension or not and this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the State while refusing the pension to the petitioner, though this matter is no more res- integra and in number of judgments it has been held by this Court that period spent by a workman has to be counted for the purpose of pension.

On the other hand, the stand of the State is that as the services of the petitioner stood regularized post 15.05.2003, which is the cut of date, therefore, there is no infirmity in the act of the State of not granting pension to the petitioner.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

The facts depict that though the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 04.06.2003, however, work charge status stood conferred upon him w.e.f. 01.01.2000.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also handed over copies of judgments passed by this Court, i.e., CWP No. 2384 of 2018, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & others versus Sh. Matwar Singh & another, decided on 18.12.2018 and CWP No. 6167 of 2012, titled as Sh. Sukru Ram versus The State of H.P. and others, decided on 06.03.2013. A perusal of the abovementioned judgments demonstrates that it has been held therein that the work charge service has to be taken into consideration while determining the right of pension upon an employee.

In the present case, work charge status stood conferred upon the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2000, i.e. before the cut of date, i.e. 15.05.2003, after which the appointments were held to be non-pensionable. Therefore, case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Sukru Ram's case supra, and accordingly, it is directed that work charge period of the petitioner be taken into consideration w.e.f. 01.01.2000 for determining the right of the petitioner to receive pension. In other words, it is held that as the petitioner stood conferred work charge status before 15.05.2003, he is entitled for pension from the date of conferment of work charge status and his pension be calculated by taking his services in this regard with effect from the date of conferment of work charge status upon him, i.e. 01.01.2000. Needful be done within a period of four weeks from today.

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