2025:HHC:29676 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4634 of 2021 Decided on: 02.09.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Balbir Kaur ....Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Abhyendra Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay K. Chauhan, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner, wife of late Sh. Narender Singh, claims family pension from due date with all incidental benefits. 2 The claim for pension has been made on the grounds that: - 2(ii) Sh. Narender Singh was appointed as regular Conductor in the respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Corporation in short). He superannuated from service on 31.05.2001. He was not paid pension by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2025:HHC:29676 - 2 - respondents despite repeated requests. 2(ii) Sh. Narender Singh instituted OA No. 1389 of 2019 (CWPOA No.6532 of 2020) before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, seeking pension from the respondent-Corporation. The said petition was disposed of on 06.10.2023, having been rendered infrucutous after his death, whereafter instant writ petition was preferred by the petitioner, seeking family pension. 3. Respondents filed reply to the writ petition, stating therein that petitioner’s husband Sh. Narender Singh was employed with the respondent-Corporation as Conductor w.e.f. 1982; His service record being old, was weeded out on 23.04.2018 by the respondent-Corporation in light of general instructions issued in office letter dated 31.07.2017 pertaining to weeding out old records. Respondents have also pleaded that petitioner’s husband had never claimed pension after his retirement. 4. Vide order passed in this writ petition on 22.08.2023, respondents were directed to file supplementary affidavit in view of averments made in the writ petition read with Annexures P-1 (Retiree Card of petitioner’s husband) 2025:HHC:29676 - 3 - and P-1/A, an office order issued by respondents on 02.08.1982. 4(i) Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Divisional Manager (Legal) of the respondent-Corporation filed supplementary affidavit, stating therein that Sh. Narender Singh, husband of the petitioner was on the rolls of the respondent-Corporation as Conductor from 1982 onwards; Record of pay roll ledger before April 1982 was weeded out on 23.04.2018; ‘As per his pay roll ledger (after April 1982), petitioner’s husband has not possessed the minimum qualifying services of ten years for pension because maximum time of service the husband of the petitioner was found absent. Copy of pay roll ledger is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2’. Annexure R-2 (sic Annexure R-1/B), is the pay roll ledger of petitioner’s husband placed on record by the respondent-Corporation. As per Sr. No.230 of this document, petitioner’s husband was paid Rs.3,120/- as basic pay for the month of May 2001 and he ‘retired’ from service on 31.05.2001. 4(ii). It is the pleaded case of the respondents that petitioner’s husband was inducted in the respondent- 2025:HHC:29676 - 4 - Corporation as regular conductor in April 1982 and he retired on 31.05.2001. This being so, petitioner’s late husband had rendered about 19 years of regular service before his retirement on 31.05.2001. He, therefore, had to his credit more than requisite 10 year’s of qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The pay roll ledger placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R-1/B does not give any insight as to whether any disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner’s husband and/or punishment imposed upon him, if any, for not counting his service for the purpose of pension. All that can be deciphered from Annexure R-1/B, is that petitioner’s husband remained absent from duties frequently and for varying periods during his entire service tenure. Sh.M.R. Mehta, General Manager (Admn.) of respondent-Corporation, who attended today’s hearing, has not been able to disclose any disciplinary proceedings initiated against petitioner’s husband for not counting the service rendered by him as regular employee towards pension. The only clarification offered is that the respondent- Corporation has weeded out the petitioner’s record and in 2025:HHC:29676 - 5 - lieu of petitioner’s husband’s remaining absent for long period, pension was not granted to him. Petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation. Merely because a regular employee frequently remained absent from duties for long periods during his entire service tenure, will not ipso-facto curtail his right to receive pension unless of course applicable rules permit the same or some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and punishment in that regard was imposed for not taking into account the service rendered by him. Here, it will be appropriate to extract following paragraphs from Jaya Bhattacharya Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors2 holding that denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must emanate from any rule enabling the Government for such denial.:- “11. What is discernible from the record is that despite Tribunal’s order dated 01.12.2003 directing the Collector to cause a departmental inquiry in respect of the appellant’s allegations to the effect that though she joined the office and signed the attendance register she was not allowed to perform her duties and was not paid salary from May, 1987 onwards, no such inquiry was ever conducted by the respondents/authorities. Even 2 Civil Appeal (C) No. 3254-3256, decided on 25.02.2025 2025:HHC:29676 - 6 - though the order passed by the respondents/authorities on 19.05.2011 that her unauthorized absence is treated as extraordinary leave and her service is regularized was not challenged subsequently, the fact remains that the appellant has been condemned unheard without subjecting her to any departmental inquiry despite Tribunal’s order. Any observation by the Tribunal or the High Court in subsequent proceedings that the appellant failed to demonstrate that she was prevented from performing her duties would not enure to the benefit of the respondents for the simple reason that the said fact could have been established either for or against the appellant only in a duly constituted departmental inquiry. The respondents’ failure to conduct an inquiry as per Tribunal’s order cannot shift the burden on the appellant to prove that she was prevented from working. Denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must emanate from any rule enabling the government for such denial. When the services have been regularized by treating the same as extraordinary leave the same cannot be treated as unauthorised leave for denying the pensionary benefits. The respondents could have denied the pension to the appellant by proving that she was unauthorizedly absent for the subject period and not by refusing to hold an inquiry against her. 12. In our considered view, having once regularized her service during the period of absence by granting extraordinary leave, it cannot be held that the said period can be treated as break in service. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the appellant would be entitled for pension. We, accordingly, direct the 2025:HHC:29676 - 7 - respondents/authorities to finalise the appellant's pension within a period of three months. However, the appellant shall not be entitled for any arrears.” 5. Looking to the facts of the instant case, the reply and supplementary affidavit filed by the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension/family pension on account of service rendered by her late husband, in accordance with law, after carefully examining the available record with them, keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. In case on examination, the service rendered by petitioner’s husband is found to be more than qualifying service and is not curtailed by any applicable service rules from being taken into account for purpose of pension, due pension/family pension as admissible in law, be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 2, 2025 Judge R.Atal