( 2025:HHC:30015 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10312/2024 Decided on: 03.09.2025 Sarup Chand …Petitioner Versus Chaudhary Shrawan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya .…Respondent. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal and Mr. Shaswat, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Respondent-University has not released pension in favour of the petitioner under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) i.e. the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, 1972, on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the eligibility criteria of having requisite ten years of regular service. Petitioner disputes this fact, hence this writ petition. 2. The case. 2(i) Petitioner was recruited in the Armed Forces on 31.12.1979. He was released from Army on 01.04.1998. He enrolled 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) himself with the Ex-servicemen Cell, which sponsored his name to the respondent-University. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Driver on 13.07.2007 by the respondent-University against the post reserved for ex-servicemen. Petitioner joined as such on 17.07.2007. His such selection and appointment in the respondent- University was on the recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Driver in the pay-scale of Rs.3330-6200+ Rs.700 Secretariat Pay plus allowances as admissible from time to time. Appointment order of the petitioner reflects his appointment as against an Ex-Cadre post, co- terminus with the project. It is not in dispute that the petitioner continued to serve as Driver with the respondent-University pursuant to his selection and appointment on 13.07.2007. 2(ii) Respondent-University, on 17.10.2008, sanctioned annual increment in petitioner’s favour w.e.f. 01.07.2008 raising his pay from 3330/-700 to Rs.3440/-+700 Special Pay. 2(iii) Respondent also gave the benefit of approved military service rendered by the petitioner towards fixation of his pay in civil employment. Office order in this regard was passed on 08.12.2008 & petitioner’s pay was accordingly refixed by giving him the benefit of Demobilized Armed Forces Rules, 1972. 2(iv) Service of the petitioner was regularized by the respondent on 11.07.2018 in the pay band of Rs.5910+20200+2000 3 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) Grade Pay plus other allowances as admissible from time to time. Clause 12 of the regularization order provided for counting the past service rendered by him as Driver on co-terminus basis, for grant of benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS). The said clause reads as under: - “12. That the past service rendered by them as Drivers on co- terminus basis will be counted for the purpose of grant of benefits under Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) as per rules without consequential monetary benefits and no arrears on this account will be paid to them by the University. However, financial benefit, if any, will be given with prospective effect.” 2(v) Vide office order dated 16.07.2019, respondent sanctioned annual increment in petitioner’s favour w.e.f. 01.07.2019 in the pay-band of Rs.5910-20200+2400 Grade Pay. 2(vi) All admissible benefits under 4-9-14 ACPS were also released in favour of the petitioner by taking into account the service rendered by him on co-terminus basis. Office order in this regard was issued on 04.09.2021. 2(vii) Petitioner superannuated from service on 30.06.2022. The Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 was revived by the State under office memorandum dated 04.05.2023. The respondent-University adopted the same on 19.05.2023 subject to ratification by its Finance Committee & Board of Management and accordingly called for options from its employees governed by 4 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) Contributory Pension Scheme. On 03.06.2023 petitioner furnished his option under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (OPS). Along with option, the requisite affidavit and undertaking were also furnished. Petitioner’s option and undertaking were duly forwarded by the respondent-University to its competent authority on 17.06.2023. Pension was still not released to him. Petitoner, therefore, preferred representation at Annexure P-10. On 20.02.2024, on the said representation, the respondent-University took a decision that co- terminus service rendered from the date from which the co-terminus appointees had been allowed the benefit of Contributory Pension Scheme and Group Saving Linked Insurance Scheme i.e. w.e.f. 15.05.2017 till the date of absorption in the University shall be counted as qualifying service for fulfilling the eligibility condition of ten years for availing the benefit of CCS (Pension) Rules. The petitioner, as noticed previously had superannuated on 30.06.2022. He did not have to his credit ten years of regular service for pensionary benefits under the OPS, in case, his service was counted from the date the benefit of Contributory Pension Scheme, was allowed to him i.e. w.e.f. 15.05.2017. For this reason, the respondent, did not release him pension. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 3. Gist of submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, 5 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) entire service rendered by the petitioner is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits, whereas, according to the respondent-University, petitioner’s appointment order clearly contained a rider that such appointment was co-terminus with the project; The said appointment order did not entail governing petitioner’s services by the CPS/OPS etc; The petitioner had accepted the offer given to him and accordingly joined his duties on 17.07.2007. It is also the stand taken by the respondent that the competent authority of the respondent-University has decided to count the service rendered by co-terminus employees w.e.f. 15.05.2017 (when the benefit of CPS and group saving linked insurance scheme was granted to such employees) till the date of their regularization as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Service rendered by the co-terminus employees prior to 15.05.2017, therefore cannot be considered for the purpose of release of pension. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the case record, I am of the considered view that the entire service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 17.07.2007 is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. This is for the following reasons: - 4(i) Appointment order of the petitioner dated 13.07.2007 though refers to his appointment as Driver against an Ex-Cadre post, on co-terminus with the project, nonetheless, it is an admitted position 6 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) that petitioner’s such appointment was on the basis of recommendations of a duly constituted Selection Committee. Petitioner was appointed against a duly sanctioned post reserved for ex-servicemen on the basis of nomination of his name by the Ex- Servicemen Cell Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner continued to serve as such in the respondent University. 4(ii) Petitioner was appointed in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 3330-6200+Rs.700 Secretariat Allowance. It is also an admitted position that right from the first day of his appointment, not only the petitioner was released regular pay scale attached to the post but had also been sanctioned & released all increments accruing thereto. 4(iii) Furthermore, the respondent-University also refixed petitioner’s pay by extending him the benefit of Demobilized Armed Forces Rules, 1972 by giving him credit of entire approved military service rendered by him before joining the civil employment while refixing his pay as Driver in the respondent-University. 4(iv) It is also not in dispute that while regularizing petitioner’s service on 11.07.2018, respondent-University also decided to count the service rendered by him as Driver on co-terminus basis for the purpose of grant of benefits under ACPS and accordingly benefits under ACPS on completion of 4-9-14 years of service rendered by the 7 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) petitioner including the service rendered by him on co-terminus basis were granted. 4(v) During hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record office order dated 06.04.2022 issued by the respondent-University reflecting release of revised pay scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2016. The office order reflects that even prior to regularization of petitioner’s service on 11.07.2018, the respondent had sanctioned revised pay scale in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Additionally, as contended by the respondent-University, petitioner’s appointment order though did not contain any stipulation about pension, yet the respondent sanctioned Contributory Pension Scheme in his favour w.e.f. 15.10.2017. All the above facets go on to show that the respondent had itself treated the service rendered by the petitioner right from the date of his first appointment on 13/17.07.2007 as akin to regular appointment. All financial benefits admissible to regular employees viz. pay-scale, refixation of pay-scale, annual increments, benefits of ACPS, revised pay scales, counting approved military service for fixing the pay scale etc. were released in favour of the petitioner irrespective of the fact that phraseology used in his appointment order was him being co-terminus with the project. The respondent had itself treated petitioner’s appointment nothing short of regular one, right from the beginning. Such service rendered by the petitioner is, 8 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) therefore, liable to be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. At this stage, it would also be appropriate to refer to Dr. Asha Devi & Ors. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 wherein the petitioners had prayed for direction to the respondents to count ad-hoc service rendered by them as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The writ petition was allowed inter-alia taking cognizance of the fact that the petitioners therein were though appointed on ad-hoc basis but in regular pay- scale. They had also been granted increments during their ad-hoc service on such regular pay scale; The ad-hoc services rendered by the petitioners were taken into consideration by the respondents while regularizing their services; The seniority of the petitioners therein was counted from the date of their joining the post on ad-hoc basis. Taking into consideration Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P.3, Sita Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4 and Rama Nand Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.5 it was concluded that un-interrupted and long ad-hoc service rendered by the petitioners was liable to be considered as qualifying service towards pension. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Dr. Asha Devi & Ors.6 instituted against the aforesaid decision was dismissed on 26.06.2025. Learned counsel for the 2 CWPOA No. 1473/2019 decided on 14.12.2023 3 Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 887 4 LPA No. 36/2010 decided on 15.06.2010 5 CWPOA No. 6959/220 decided on 07.12.2023 6 LPA NO. 326/2025 a/w connected matters dismissed on 26.06.2025 9 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) petitioner has also placed reliance upon Rajan Katoch Vs. Chaudhary Shrawan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya7. The petitioner therein was appointed as Assistant Analytical Scientist co-terminus with the project in the respondent- University. He was held entitled for regularization/absorption right from the date of his initial appointment on co-terminus basis. It is not in dispute that the said decision has been implemented and all benefits have been released in favour of the said petitioner. 5. In the given facts, when actions of respondent- University portray a clear picture of its treating petitioner’s appointment as akin to regular appointment right from the first day of his service, and accordingly released regular pay scale, annual increments thereupon, revised pay-scales & annual increments, granted benefit of petitioner’s approved military service while fixing his pay, released him all the benefits of Assured Career Progression Scheme, respondents’ stand of not counting such service rendered by the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of pension is untenable. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 13.07.2007 is directed to be considered as qualifying service towards the pension. Respondent is also directed to issue appropriate 7 CWP(OA) No. 2021/2019 decided on 27.11.2021 10 ( 2025:HHC:30015 ) consequential order within six weeks in favour of the petitioner. The amount paid to the petitioner towards Contributory Pension Scheme shall be liable to be adjusted. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 03rd September, 2025(rohit)