Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3797 (HP)

Ranjit Singh v. State of H. P.

2025-10-27

Ranjan Sharma

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Ranjit Singh, has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief:- “(i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to make the payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner after having put in more than 13 years of regular service in the Department of Industries/Technical Education, Government of Himachal Pradesh.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.60-175 on 29.06.1963 in the Department of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, and though he had rendered 13 years of continuous service, but, no Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment was allowed to the petitioner. It is averred that petitioner had made a Representation on 23.01.1977 [Annexure P-II] and another Representation on 17.08.2003 [Annexure P-IV] to the Director of Technical Education requesting to sanction and release the Retiral Benefits and then again on 20.04.2006 [Annexure P-V], but in vain. Petitioner asserts to have served a Legal Notice on 18.02.2009 [Annexure P-VI], to which a response was given on 27.02.2009 [Annexure P-VII], whereby, the case was forwarded by Joint Director Technical Education to the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh. In this background, petitioner claims benefit of Pension as per Central Civil Services [Pension] Rules], 1972 for 13 years of regular service rendered in the Department of Industries and Department of Technical Education. It is averred that petitioner has been discriminated as pensionary benefits have not been released, whereas, pension after completion of 10 years of service has been granted to other employees. It is further averred that due to non- payment of pensionary benefits, petitioner has been deprived of his Civil Rights and Fundamental Rights, leading to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.1-SECRETARY INDUSTRIES: 3. Commissioner Industries has filed Reply- Affidavit dated 03.11.2010 admitting that petitioner- Ranjit Singh, was appointed as Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.60-175 and he joined in service on 29.06.1963 in the Department of Industries. In Reply-Affidavit, the factum that the petitioner had rendered 13 years of service, is denied. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.1-SECRETARY INDUSTRIES: 3. Commissioner Industries has filed Reply- Affidavit dated 03.11.2010 admitting that petitioner- Ranjit Singh, was appointed as Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.60-175 and he joined in service on 29.06.1963 in the Department of Industries. In Reply-Affidavit, the factum that the petitioner had rendered 13 years of service, is denied. It is further averred that in 1972 due to bifurcation of Industries Department, petitioner was allocated to the Labour and Employment Department and he is working in ITI at Shimla when the petitioner left his services, while being under the control of Director of Technical Education, Sundernagar. In Para-5 of Reply-Affidavit, it is stated that petitioner abandoned his service in the year 1976 while serving in ITI, Shimla, under the control of Director of Technical Education. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3-TECHNICAL EDUCATION: 3(i). Respondents No.2 and 3 have filed Reply- Affidavit through Director of Technical Education, sworn on 29.11.2010. Reply-Affidavit states that on 21.07.1983 [Annexure R-1], the State Government took Policy Decision to merge seven ITIs and one out-housed ITI for Tribal Area from the Department of Labour and Employment [under Industries Department] to the Department of Technical Education at Sundernagar. Reply-Affidavit states that final allocation of Staff from Industries Department to the Department of Technical Education was made by the State Authorities as per communication dated 20.01.1984 [Annexure R-2] and communication dated 21.04.1984 [Annexure R-3]. In Para-4 of Reply-Affidavit, it is stated that before final allocation of Staff from Directorate of Industries to the Directorate of Technical Education, petitioner left the service of Respondent No.1, i.e. Directorate of Labour, Employment and Training under the Industries Department. In Para-9 (i) & (ii),  it is further stated that petitioner had left the services from the Department of Industries and was not allocated to the Department of Technical Education in terms of order dated 21.04.1984 [Annexure R-3]. It is further averred that petitioner is not entitled to any relief in view of the fact that petitioner had left the services-job for the reasons known to him. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.4-ACCOUNTANT GENERAL: 3(ii). Respondent No.4-Accountant General had filed a separate Reply stating therein that petitioner had quit the services in the year 1976 despite having been appointed as Clerk on 29.06.1963. It is further averred that pension can only be granted after the pension case is sent to the aforesaid Respondent. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.4-ACCOUNTANT GENERAL: 3(ii). Respondent No.4-Accountant General had filed a separate Reply stating therein that petitioner had quit the services in the year 1976 despite having been appointed as Clerk on 29.06.1963. It is further averred that pension can only be granted after the pension case is sent to the aforesaid Respondent. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.5-LABOUR COMMISSIONER: 3(iii). Respondent No.5-Labour Commissioner had filed Reply-Affidavit dated 31.03.2012. Para-3 of Reply-Affidavit states that Meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee [DPC] was held on 05.02.1979 [Annexure R-1] for confirmation of Class-III Staff working in the Labour, Employment and Training Department, but the case of the petitioner was not considered for confirmation because of the reason that he had quit/resigned from service. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 4. Petitioner had filed Rejoinder admitting in Para-3 that petitioner had left the job in the year 1976. It is further averred that Service Book of the petitioner was not traceable due to which pension case was not finalized. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER BY WAY OF SEPARATE REJOINDERS TO THE REPLY FILED BY OTHER RESPONDENTS: 4(i). Petitioner had also filed separate rejoinders to the reply filed by other respondents without denying the factum that petitioner had quit/resigned from service and, therefore, no retiral benefits like Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment was admissible to him. 5. Heard, Ms. Aruna Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5; and Mr. Lokendar Paul Thakur, Learned Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.4-Accountant General. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that petitioner is not entitled for retiral benefits, i.e. Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment, for the following reasons:- 6(i). Admittedly, petitioner was appointed as Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.60-175 in the Department of Industries on 29.06.1963. On bifurcation of the Department of Industries in 1972, petitioner was allocated to work as Clerk under the Principal ITI, Shimla, i.e. under the Department of Labour, Employment and Training, which was further made part of the Directorate of Technical Education, Sundernagar. Admittedly, the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 05.02.1979 [Annexure R-1], for confirming the Class-III Ministerial posts, wherein, the name of the petitioner was not considered. Admittedly, the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 05.02.1979 [Annexure R-1], for confirming the Class-III Ministerial posts, wherein, the name of the petitioner was not considered. Perusal of the Minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 05.02.1979, Annexure R-1 (supra), indicates that petitioner was not considered for confirmation in view of the fact that the petitioner resigned from service. Meaning thereby, that on the date of convening Departmental Promotion Committee on 05.02.1979, the petitioner was not in service due to his resignation or having left/quit service during the year 1976 as admitted by petitioner in legal notice [Annexure P-4] and communication dated 30.04.2009 [Annexure P-10] and is borne out from averments in Para-2 of Reply-Affidavit of Respondent No.1 and is further corroborated from averments in Paras 4 and 9 (i) in Reply-Affidavit of Respondents No.2 and 3 that petitioner had left the job during 1976. This is further substantiated from Paras 3 to 5 of Reply-Affidavit filed by Respondent No.5 that the petitioner had quit/resigned from service during the year 1976. Factum of having left the job in 1976 is admitted by the petitioner in Para 2 of Rejoinder filed to Reply of Respondent No.3. Similar admission is borne out from Rejoinder to Reply filed by Respondent No.5 also. Thus, it is own case of the petitioner that he served the Department till the year 1976 when he abandoned/ quit/left service/resigned from Department. 6(ii). Based on the above background, claim for pension for having rendered 13 years of service from 19.06.1963 till 1976 i.e. the date when he quit/left service/resigned from service is not tenable, for the reason, that at the relevant time of leaving service/quitting service/resignation in 1976, the pension in normal course was admissible on completion of 20 years of qualifying service [as per norms existing prior to 01.01.1986] and, therefore, mere rendering 13 years of qualifying service will not entitle the petitioner for pension. Further, once the petitioner claims to have resigned from service, then, as per Rule 26 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, resignation entails for forfeiture of past-service. Even leaving or quitting service due to unauthorized absence entails forfeiture of past-service in terms of FR 17-A read with Rule 27 of CCS [Pension] Rules rendering him ineligible for grant of pension. Further, the pension is admissible to a Government Servant upon superannuation as per Rule-35 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. Even leaving or quitting service due to unauthorized absence entails forfeiture of past-service in terms of FR 17-A read with Rule 27 of CCS [Pension] Rules rendering him ineligible for grant of pension. Further, the pension is admissible to a Government Servant upon superannuation as per Rule-35 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. Once the petitioner had left the job/quit the service, but had not been superannuated from Government Service, therefore, the claim for pension cannot be granted dehors the mandate of Rules 35 and 36 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. Further, petitioner has not placed any material on record to show that he was retired from Government Service under due orders issued by the State Authorities. In the absence of any such material, the claim for pension is not tenable and, therefore, the petitioner being ineligible is not entitled for pension. 6(iii). So far as the claim for Gratuity is concerned, petitioner is not entitled for Gratuity, for the reason, that as per Rule 50 of CCS [Pension] Rules, Gratuity is admissible to a Government Servant, who has completed 5 years of qualifying service and upon his retirement is entitled for Gratuity. In the instant case, in the absence of any material on record to show that petitioner had “retired from Government Service” then, the claim for Gratuity is not tenable. 6(iv). So far as the claim for Leave Encashment is concerned, the petitioner is not entitled for Leave Encashment in view of the provision of Rule 39 of CCS [Leave] Rules, which entitle a Government Servant, upon superannuation, for encashment of unutilized earned leave. Rule-39 (2) (a) read with Rule 39 (3) of the CCS [Leave] Rules, 1972, entitles a Government Servant for Leave Encashment upon retirement from service on attaining the age of retirement. In the instant case, once the petitioner has not been able to establish that he retired from Government Service, therefore, in the absence of such retirement, the plea of the petitioner for Leave Encashment is not tenable. 6(v). Right of a Government Servant for retiral benefits of Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment flows from Statutory Rules. In the instant case, right of retiral benefits is governed by CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, as applicable to Government Employees in Himachal Pradesh. 6(v). Right of a Government Servant for retiral benefits of Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment flows from Statutory Rules. In the instant case, right of retiral benefits is governed by CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, as applicable to Government Employees in Himachal Pradesh. Once nothing has been placed on record to establish that the petitioner retired from Government Service, whereas, the existing material on record negates the factum of retirement but asserts that the petitioner had left Government Service or quit Government Service or had resigned [as is borne from Reply-Affidavits], then the petitioner being ineligible, is not entitled for retiral benefits. Claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits dehors the mandate of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, cannot be acceded to, as it shall amount to conferring a benefit dehors the Rules, which is impermissible. 6(vi). Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in CWPOA No.5404 of 2020, titled as Uttam Chand Vij Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others to assert that the benefit of Pension was allowed under CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972 to the petitioner therein. Factual Matrix of the aforesaid case is distinguishable, for the reason, that petitioner Uttam Chand Vij [supra] was in Government Service, whose services were terminated, so as to give effect to his transfer from Government Departments to a Corporation which was owned and controlled by Government, wherein, he rendered continuous service till retirement. Even, the facts of instant case are at variance, for the reason, that there is no material to show that petitioner had retired from Government Service and in the absence of any material on record to establish the factum of retirement, the claim of pension and gratuity dehors the Statutory Rules-CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972 and claim for leave encashment dehors the CCS [Pension] Rules cannot be granted. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the claim, which was not admissible, due to the act and conduct of the petitioner in having left the job or quit the job or had resigned from service during the year 1976, disentitling him for pension, gratuity and leave encashment in terms of Statutory Rules, referred to above. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 7. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 7. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition, is dismissed, in the following terms:- (i) Claim of the petitioner for retiral benefits, i.e. Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment cannot be granted to the petitioner being ineligible and dehors the Statutory Rules of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972 and CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972; (ii) Petitioner having quit/left service or resigned from Government Service is not eligible for retiral benefits, i.e. Pension, Gratuity and Leave Encashment; and (iii) Costs made easy for respective parties. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.