IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10783 of 2024 Date of Decision: 07.10.2025 __________________________________________________________ Lalit Sen …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta & Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that service rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization on contractual basis as well as on PTA basis against sanctioned post ought to have been taken into consideration by the respondents, while computing the qualifying service, however, respondents have only taken into consideration the period of service rendered by the petitioner after his regularization for the purpose qualifying service. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that petitioner herein was appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) w.e.f 02.06.2007 through a duly constituted Board/Selection Committee under PTA, on a fixed honorarium under Grant-in-Aid Policy of the Government vide appointment letter dated 02.06.2007 (Annexure P-1). After rendering service of more than 13 years, services of the petitioner were brought on contractual establishment, vide office order dated 20.08.2015. Ultimately, petitioner retired from service on 29.02.2024, after having rendered more than 17 years of service in temporary, contractual and regular capacity, but yet he was denied pension on the ground that he has not completed ten years qualifying service. 3. Though at first instance, petitioner filed representation dated 01.07.2024 to Director, Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-3), but since no response was received by him, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the following main relief:- “i. That the respondents may be ordered to consider the case of the petitioner for pension and he may be ordered to be paid pension from the due date, with all benefits incidental thereof.” 4. Precisely, the claim of the petititioner, as has been put forth in the petition is that service rendered by him prior to his regularization in the capacity of temporary or contractual is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing the qualifying service, -3- especially when it is not in dispute that initial appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer (Commerce), vide appointment letter dated 02.06.2007, was made through a duly constituted Board/Selection Committee under PTA, on a fixed honorarium under Grant-in-Aid Policy of the Government against sanctioned post. To substantiate his aforesaid claim, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which is applicable in the case of the petitioner to state that continuous service rendered under the Government in an officiating or temporary capacity shall qualify if that service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the State Government or the Central Government. He further submitted that since temporary service rendered by the petitioner was subsequently followed by his regularization, service rendered by the petitioner both in temporary capacity as well as on contractual basis necessarily required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing qualifying service. 5. To the contrary, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents, vehemently argued that since initial appointment of the petitioner was on PTA basis, service rendered by the petitioner in temporary capacity was rightly not taken into consideration for the purpose of computing qualifying service. While referring to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate -4- General, submitted that as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 before completing qualifying service of ten years, shall not be entitled to pension but shall continue to be entitled to service gratuity in terms of Rule 49(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He submitted that minimum qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is ten years. He further submitted that since petitioner only rendered regular service of four years, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while denying him pension. He further submitted that service rendered on PTA basis as a stop gap measure cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. The petitioner was brought on contract in the year 2015 and retired on 29.02.2024, therefore, not having ten years of qualifying service for pension. 6. In nutshell, case of the respondents, as has been projected in the reply and further canvassed by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, is that service rendered by the petitioner on PTA basis prior to conversion of his service from PTA to contractual cannot be taken into consideration as the same is totally temporary in nature. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute qua the fact that petitioner herein was initially appointed as Lecturer (Commerce), vide appointment letter dated 02.06.2007, through a duly -5- constituted Board/Selection Committee under PTA, on a fixed honorarium under Grant-in-Aid Policy of the Government as is evident from the office order dated 20.08.2020 (Annexure P-2), which reads as under: “No.EDN-HE(19B (1)-2/2012-PTA-CC Directorate of Higher Education Himachal Pradesh Dated: Shimla-171001 the 20th August, 2020 Office Order In pursuance to the instructions contained in letter No.HP- Kha(7)06/2012-Loose-I dated 05.03.2020 of the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and recommendation of screening committee constituted at Directorate Level those PTA provided teachers who were covered under PTA-GIA Rules-2006 and engaged prior to 03.01.2008 against sanctioned post of Lecturer School are hereby regularized as Lecturer (New) at the present place of posting with immediate effect in the Pay Band of Rs.10300-34800/- with Grade Pay Rs.4200/- and other allowances admissible from time to time subject to the final outcome of CWP No.2850 of 2020 & CMP No.7326 with the terms and conditions as mentioned below:- Sr. No. Name Subject Name of GSSS Distt. Date of Birth Date of Initial Engagement Remarks 1 Kapil Kumar English GSSS Barthata SML 12.03.1980 1543 Lalit Sen Commerce GSSS Nanawan MND 05.02.1996 11.06.2007 General 8. Careful perusal of aforesaid communication itself suggests that only those PTA provided teachers, who were covered under PTA- GIA Rules-2006 and engaged prior to 03.01.2008 against sanctioned post of Lecturer School, were regularized as Lecturer. Since petitioner was appointed against the sanctioned post on PTA basis, his services -6- were subsequently regularized as Lecturer against the subject in question, pursuant to the instructions contained in letter dated 05.03.2020 issued by the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Since service rendered by the petitioner on PTA basis was taken into consideration by the department concerned for the purpose of regularization, there is/was otherwise no occasion for the respondents to claim that service rendered by the petitioner on PTA basis cannot be counted for the purpose of pension. At this stage, it would be apt to take note of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules, which reads as under:- “13. Service in State Governments (1) In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State Government, who was initially appointed in a pensionable establishment of the State Government on or before 31st December, 2003 and who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply. Government in an officiating or temporary or substantive capacity shall qualify: Provided that continuous service rendered under that Government in an officiating or temporary capacity shall qualify if that service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the State Government or the Central Government.” 9. Careful perusal of aforesaid rule clearly reveals that in the case of a Government servant belonging to a State Government, who was initially appointed in a pensionable establishment of the State Government on or before 31st December, 2003 and who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the -7- continuous service rendered under the State Government in an officiating or temporary or substantive capacity shall qualify. Provided that continuous service rendered under the Government in an officiating or temporary capacity is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the State Government or the Central Government. In the case at hand, admittedly petitioner herein was appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) w.e.f 02.06.2007 through a duly constituted Board/Selection Committee under PTA, on a fixed honorarium in terms of Grant-in-Aid Policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and thereafter, his services were brought on contractual establishment w.e.f 20.08.2015 and ultimately, services of the petitioner were regularized in the month of August, 2020. Petitioner herein retired from the service on 29.02.2024, meaning thereby, petitioner, prior to his superannuation on 29.02.2024, rendered more than 17 years of service in temporary, contractual or regular capacity, if it is so, entire service rendered by the petitioner prior to his superannuation is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of computing qualifying service in terms of Rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules. There is nothing in the reply filed by the respondents suggestive of the fact that petitioner herein was ever discontinued after his appointment as Lecturer (Commerce) w.e.f 02.06.2007 under Grant-in-Aid Policy, rather reply clearly reveals that service rendered by the petitioner on PTA basis was brought on -8- contractual establishment w.e.f 20.08.2015 and thereafter, in the month of August, 2020, he was regularized. 10. Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.8953 of 2013, titled as Joga Singh and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others along with connected matters, had an occasion to deal with similar issue. Relevant paras of the afore judgment are extracted hereinbelow: “11. According to rule 13 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. In the instant case, petitioners have been appointed by the State Government as per the norms laid down though initially for a period of one year, but their appointments were continued from the year 2000 followed by their appointments on substantive post on 31.10.2007 and 22.11.2007. The service on contract can also be counted under rule 17, which is subsequently followed by substantive appointment in a pensionable establishment. The status of the petitioners was better of than the persons appointed merely on contract basis since they have continuously worked for a period of 7 years without any obstruction and obtained essential qualification of one year condensed teacher training course. 12. We are of the considered view that the petitioners have been appointed before 15.5.2003 and are entitled to pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General that the appointments of the petitioners would be reckoned from the date of their regularization/absorption on 31.10.2007 and 22.11.2007. There is not even a single day break in the service of the petitioners and they have fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the Vidya Upasak Yojna as well as in their appointments letters. Respondent-State is a welfare -9- State. The services rendered by the petitioners from the years 2000 to 2007 cannot be obliterated or rendered otiose.” 11. Consequently, in view of the above discussion as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant pension to the petitioner taking into consideration entire service rendered by him in temporary, contractual and regular capacity before superannuation. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for quite long, this Court hopes and trusts that respondents No.1 to 3 will take necessary steps to forward the pension case of the petitioner to respondent No.4 expeditiously, preferably within four weeks and thereafter, pension payment order shall be issued by respondent No.4 within four weeks. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge October 07, 2025 (sunil)