IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19800/2025 Decided on: 19.12.2025 Mansa Ram …Petitioner Versus HRTC & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. Vinod Gupta, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the pleadings, impugned order and the order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner instituted Mansa Ram Vs. HRTC & Ors.2 seeking applicability of Sheela Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 The said petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 CWP No.4447/2025 decided on 13.05.2025 3 CWPOA No. 195/2019 decided on 26.12.2019 2 decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decision within a given time frame. Pursuant to the directions, respondent No.1 considered the case of the petitioner and rejected the same under office order dated 02.09.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs: - “i) That impugned office order dated 02.09.2025, Annexure P-7 may kindly be quashed and set aside, being contrary to Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules. ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant pension to the petitioner as per Rule 44(8) of Pension Rules Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, and to release the pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.2024 till date with interest @ 12% per annum.” 3. In the impugned order itself, respondent No. 1 has set out the following factual details regarding the service rendered by the petitioner: - The petitioner was appointed as Driver on contract basis in the respondents-Corporation on 20.05.2007; His services were regularized on 23.07.2014; The petitioner superannuated from service on 30.04.2024; Petitioner had rendered a total of 9 years, 9 months and 7 days of regular service. The respondents have held that since the petitioner was not in possession of 10 years of regular service, required as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, he is not entitled for pensionary benefits. While 3 rejecting petitioner’s case, the respondents have not taken into consideration following Rule 44(8) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules as amended in the year 2022:- “44. Amount of Pension (8) In the case of a Government servant who has rendered a qualifying service of nine years and nine months or more but less than ten years, his qualifying service for the purpose of this rule shall be ten years and he shall be eligible for pension in accordance with sub-rule (1).” The above rules, which previously existed as Rule 49(3) in the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was interpreted in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Bachittar Singh & Ors.4 wherein it was held that the incumbent, who has completed nine years and nine months of service, is entitled for pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Operative portion of the decision reads as under: - “21. Thus, it is evident from what has been discussed hereinabove, that Rule 49 (1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules has to be construed harmoniously with Rule 49 (3) thereof and when one reads the said provisions with the clarifications which have been given by the Department of Personnel, dated 13.10.1983, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that an incumbent who has not completed ten years of service and is thus not qualified for receiving pension, can be held to be entitled to the said benefit only if such an incumbent has put in more than nine years nine months of service in the respondent-Department. Any view taken to the contrary will do injustice with the letter and spirit of the provisions of Rule 49 (1) and Rule 49 (3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. 22. Accordingly, we hold that the view which has been taken by the Division Bench in CWP No.7708 of 2012, titled Prem Sagar Versus State of H.P. & others (supra) is the correct view with regard to the interpretation of Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, whereas, the view which has been expressed by the Division Bench in State of H.P. Versus Joginder Singh, [2012] (3) Him. L.R. 1288 (supra), so also in CWP No. 8786 of 2012-I, titled as Lashkari Ram Vs. State of H.P. and 4 LPA No. 4011/2013 decided on 13.05.2022 4 others, decided on 8th May, 2013 cannot be treated as the right precedent, especially in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Versus Gandiba Behera, 2019 SCC Online SC 1444. Reference is answered accordingly.” 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were denied to the petitioner, cannot be said to be in conformity with law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioner’s case afresh, in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations, within a period of three weeks. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 19th December, 2025(rohit)