2025:HHC:42896 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.4377 of 2019 Decided on: 02.12.2025 _________________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the petitioners: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2-State. Mr. Virender Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No.3-H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Vinod Kumar and 52 others, being pre 2004 employees, initially filed Civil Writ Petition No.7255 of 2012 and upon establishment of Learned State Administrative Tribunal, the matter the same was transferred to Tribunal; and upon abolition of Tribunal, the same stands re-transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.4377 of 2019, praying for following relief(s): 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:42896 - 2 - “(i). Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to consider the pension scheme formulated by the Board and have it implemented in the alternative direct the respondent authorities to implement the pension scheme formulated by the board.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they were appointed as regular employees in the Marketing Board and in Agricultural Market Committees under the Respondent-Board prior to 2004 and their services conditions are governed by the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural and Horticultural Produce Marketing [Development and Regulation] Act 2005 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and the Rules/Regulations framed thereunder. The instant petition has been filed seeking claim for pension upon superannuation. It is averred that the Respondent No.3-Board in its meeting held on 07.06.2005 [Annexure P-2], decided to prepare a pension scheme for its employees at the Board level and to send the same to State Government for approval. In response to this, the proposed pension scheme was forwarded for consideration to Finance Department and other stakeholders on 28.04.2008 [Annexure P-3] and on 04.06.2009 [Annexure P-4]. 2025:HHC:42896 - 3 - 2(i). It is averred that the Respondent-Board had invited an expression of interest from LIC for introduction of Group Superannuation Pension Scheme intending to cover 111 regular employees who were appointed prior to 14.05.2003, on the pattern of the CCS (Pension) Rules, issued by the State Government but the proposal submitted by LIC and other stake-holders was not approved with directions to them to submit fresh proposal. Petitioners have placed on record, the RTI Information dated 02.04.2011 [Annexure P-7] and the documents as in Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-9 indicating the financial outlay of Respondent-Board which were liable to be considered. In this background, the instant petition has been filed seeking a direction to the Respondent-Authorities to consider the pension scheme formulated by the Board and to formulate and implement the Pension-Scheme for the employees- petitioners. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.3-BOARD: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 31.08.2012, Respondent No.3-Himachal Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board has filed a Reply-Affidavit 2025:HHC:42896 - 4 - of Managing Director of the Respondent-Board dated 16.10.2012. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates the statutory functions of the Board in terms of the Act which is the apex body for regulating various activities undertaken by the Board including the conditions of service of its employees. Para 3 of the Reply-Affidavit refers to Section 85 of the Act which states that the Marketing Board shall make regulations with the prior approval of the State Government. By virtue of Section 85 of the Act, Reply-Affidavit states that Himachal Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board and Committees [Employees Contributory Provident Fund Regulations 2006 stands notified by the Respondent-Board on 01.09.2007. 3(ii). Para 4 of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that CCS (Pension) Rules 1992 are inapplicable to appointments made in the State on or after 15.05.2023 and such employees are to be governed by Himachal Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board and Committees [Employees Contributory Provident Fund] Regulations, 2006 notified on 01.09.2007 for regulating the provident fund to the employees of the Board as well APMCs. Para 8 of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that as 2025:HHC:42896 - 5 - per Section 85 of the Act and Rules, the conditions of service of officers and of other employees of the Board and Market Committees are to be governed by Regulations be framed by the Board with the previous approval of the State Government. 3(iii). Reply-Affidavit indicates the pension scheme notified by the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and the HIMUDA for its employees. Para 12 of the Reply-Affidavit states that the Respondent-Board is not getting any financial support or grant-in-aid from the State Government to meet out the pending liabilities of retirement, gratuity and other service conditions and these benefits are to be granted to the employees from its own resources. Objections with respect to delay and laches has also been raised in the petition. It is in this background, that a prayer is made by the Respondent-Board, for dismissing the writ petition. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES: 4. Pursuance to the issuance of notice on 31.08.2012 State Authorities-Respondents No.1 & 2 did not file a reply but chose to adopt the Reply-Affidavit filed by the Respondent-Board on 27.08.2020. 5. Heard. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Senior 2025:HHC:42896 - 6 - Advocate assisted by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Virender Rathore, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3-Board and have gone through the case records. ORDERS PASSED DURING PENDENCY OF INSTANT PETITION: 6. Petitioners have placed reliance on the communication dated 15.03.2023, with the averment that Respondent-Board had proposed to introduce the Old Pension Scheme under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 or other scheme for the employees of the Board/Market Committees. Based on this communication, Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order on 24.05.2023, directing the State Authorities to have an up-date in the matter. Pursuant to this, Learned State Counsel has placed on record, the Instructions dated 15.07.2023, received from Secretary [Agriculture] informing that the matter was taken up with the Finance Department and the Finance Department has opined/advised that there is no pension scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules for the employees of Respondent-Board-APMCs and the respondents were directed to maintain status quo, in 2025:HHC:42896 - 7 - the matter. 6(i). Matter was again listed on 05.01.2024 and on 12.01.2024, when, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the State Authorities and the Respondent-Board to have updated Instructions on the claim for pension to retired employees of Marketing Board/APMCs. Pursuant to this, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3-Board has placed on record a communication dated 01.04.2024 stating therein, that claim for pension under the Old Pension Scheme was taken up by Service Committee in its meeting held on 02.03.2024 but the same was dropped, so as to await, the Government decision in the matter, which is borne out from the orders dated 22.05.2024 of this Court as reflected in orders passed by the Coordinate Bench on 22.05.2024. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED IN CMP(T) NO.298 OF 2025: 7. Petitioners filed an application CMP(T) No.298 of 2025 for placing on record, the communication dated 21.02.2025 [Annexure A-1], to assert that Managing Director of Respondent No.3-Board has referred the case to Respondent No.1-Secretary (Agriculture) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 21.02.2025 with 2025:HHC:42896 - 8 - the request to examine the issue and to take a decision at the Government level, being a policy decision, as to whether the benefit of Old Pension Scheme is to be extended to the employees of the Respondent-Board and APMC’s or not. 7(i). Upon issuance of notice on this application and in response to communication dated 21.02.2025, the Respondent-Board had feigned ignorance, by stating that the communication is a matter of record and the claim as to whether the petitioners were to be granted benefit of pension was to be decided by way of a policy decision by the State Government. Learned Counsel for Respondent-Board and Learned State Counsel submit that as per Section 45 of the Act, the utilization of Marketing Development Fund for regulating the condition of service including pension or provident fund was optional; and even as per Section 85 of the Act, the conditions of service of the employees of Respondent-Board/APMCs are to be governed by Regulations, which may be framed by Respondent-Board with the previous approval of the State Government. Learned State Counsel further submits that the issue regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility of pension 2025:HHC:42896 - 9 - is a matter, relatable to a policy decision to be taken by the State Government within the ambit of the Act-Rules and the Regulations and as on day no such Regulations exist for mandatorily giving pension to the petitioners under the Old Pension Scheme dated 03.04.2023 or under the CCS (Pension) Rules and, therefore, the claim was opposed. STATEMENT OF LEARNED COUNSEL(S) FOR PETITIONERS: 8. Faced with the above situation, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, assisted by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, on Instructions state that the petitioners shall be satisfied, in case, the State Authorities are directed to examine the matter and take an appropriate decision, regarding the claim for pension contained in the communication dated 21.02.2025 [Annexure A-1] [filed in CMP(T) No.298 of 2025, at Page 118 & 119 of Paper-Book] within a reasonable period. [Statement Taken on Record]. ANALYSIS: 9. Without going into the rival claims and contentions and leaving all questions open, since the claim regarding the admissibility or inadmissibility the pension either under the CCS (Pension) Rules or by 2025:HHC:42896 - 10 - way of Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules or in such other manner falls within the exclusive domain of the State Government, which needs to be examined within the ambit of the Marketing Board Act/Rules and/or Regulations. Therefore, in absence of any violation of any fundamental or legal right, this Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the Respondents to grant pension to the petitioner(s), in fact-situation of instant case. Even, Learned Senior Counsel has not been able to assert and establish their claim for pension, on the basis of the Act of 2005 or the Rules or Regulations, occupying the field as on day. Moreover, the issue as to whether the Respondents-State and the Respondent-Board feel it necessary and expedient to grant pension or not to the petitioners [who are the employees of Respondent-Board and APMC’s] either by incorporating an amendment in existing Regulations or to issue fresh Regulation [subject to feasibility] or in other manner if so desired, falls with the purview of the policy decision, which may or may not be taken by State Authorities and the Respondent-Board. However, as prayed for by Learned Senior Counsel and to secure the ends of justice, the instant matter is disposed of with the directions 2025:HHC:42896 - 11 - infra. 10. No other point was argued/raised. DIRECTIONS: 11. In view of the above discussion and as prayed for by Learned Senior Counsel/Counsel for the petitioners and leaving all questions open, the instant petition is disposed of in the following terms: (i). State Authorities-Respondents No.1 & 2, shall examine the communication dated 21.02.2025 [Annexure A-1] [At page 118 and 119 of Paper-Book] in accordance with law including the Marketing Board Act/Regulations and applicable norms and to pass a speaking order within a period of four months from today; (ii). In case, claim as in communication dated 21.02.2025 is acceded to, the eligible consequential benefits, if any, shall accrue; (iii). Needless to say, that this Court, has not adverted to the claims/contentions and all questions are left open to be examined by the Respondents 1 to 3, in accordance with law, within the above period; (iv). Parties shall bear respective costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition along 2025:HHC:42896 - 12 - with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge December 02, 2025 [Shivender]