JUDGMENT : RANJAN SHARMA, J. 1. Petitioner, Sunita, being the widow of late Dr. Prakash Chand, had initially filed CWP No.1654 of 2012 before this Court and on establishment of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the said Tribunal and now upon abolition, the matter stood transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.959 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs:- “13(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow this petition after calling for the records of the case and perusing the same, set aside and quash impugned orders Annexures P5 and P6 by a Writ of Certiorari, or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, further order or direct the respondents to immediately grant and allow family pension in the case of deceased Govt. servant Dr. Prakash Chand, from the date due, in favour of the petitioner, being his legally wedded wife, a widow now and a writ of Mandamus be issued against the Respondents to this effect. 13(b) Further declare that terms and conditions of contract service Annexure P4, clearly provide for application of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in the case of late Dr. Prakash Chand, M.O. and his service for pensionary benefits including the family pension right from the date when he entered service on 9.08.2000 with the respondent department.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that her husband Late Dr. Prakash Chand was appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis in terms of the modified Notification dated 04.08.2000 [Annexure P-4] and he joined his services in PHC Nihri [Mandi] on 09.08.2000. In terms of the said orders, Dr. Prakash Chand continued to serve the Respondent-State and his services were regularized as a Medical Officer [HPHS-I] in the pay scale of Rs.7880-13500 with initial start of Rs.8000/- and NPA and other allowances on 08.03.2007 [Annexure P-2]. Husband of the petitioner, Dr. Prakash Chand, died during service on 20.07.2011. After his death, the present petitioner, Sunita, moved the case for grant of family pension, but the said request was turned down by Respondent No.5-Accountant General on 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] on the ground that since the deceased Government Servant, Dr. Husband of the petitioner, Dr. Prakash Chand, died during service on 20.07.2011. After his death, the present petitioner, Sunita, moved the case for grant of family pension, but the said request was turned down by Respondent No.5-Accountant General on 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] on the ground that since the deceased Government Servant, Dr. Prakash Chand, was an ad hoc employee w.e.f. 09.08.2000 to 07.03.2007 and such ad hoc service does not count as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, coupled with the fact that petitioner was regularized on 08.03.2007 and was to be governed by Contributory Pension Scheme, therefore, the case was rejected by placing reliance on a communication dated 10.09.2008 [Annexure P-6], which denies the admissibility of pension on the basis of ad hoc service. It is in this background that petitioner, Sunita, being the widow of Late Dr. Prakash Chand, who had died in harness on 20.07.2011 has come up before this Court seeking family pension as admissible to her in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, as the petitioner’s husband had, in fact, rendered contractual service, which is clear from Annexure P-4 dated 04.08.2000 and not rendered ad hoc service, which was factually incorrect. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES-RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 4 IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, the State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit of Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, dated 04.07.2012. (i). In Paras-1, 3 and 8 of Reply-Affidavit, State Authorities have admitted the incumbency of the petitioner’s husband, Late Dr. Prakash Chand, who was appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis and he joined, as such, pursuant to Annexure P-1 and he continued to serve on contract basis since 09.08.2000 [Annexure P-1] till 07.03.2007 before his regularization on 08.03.2007. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that once the husband of the petitioner was regularized in the year 2007, therefore, the petitioner’s husband was not eligible for pension, but was eligible for Contributory Pension in terms of The Himachal Pradesh Contributory Pension Rules notified by the State Authorities in the year 2006. Paras-4 to 6 of Reply-Affidavit further indicates that even as per Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, counting of contractual service for pension is only for the purposes of granting Contributory Pension to an employee and, therefore, it is in this background the State Authorities have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Paras-4 to 6 of Reply-Affidavit further indicates that even as per Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, counting of contractual service for pension is only for the purposes of granting Contributory Pension to an employee and, therefore, it is in this background the State Authorities have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. STAND OF ACCOUNTANT GENEERAL-RESPONDENT NO.5 IN REPLY AFFIDAVIT: (ii). Accountant General had filed Reply- Affidavit dated 22.05.2012 with the averments that husband of the petitioner, namely, Dr. Prakash Chand, was appointed as a Medical Officer on ad hoc basis on 09.08.2000 and he rendered ad hoc service from 09.08.2000 to 07.03.2007 and was regularized on 08.03.2007. In these circumstances, the stand of Respondent No.5 is that once the husband of the petitioner was regularized on 08.03.2007, therefore, husband of the petitioner was not entitled for pension, but was to be governed by Contributory Pension Scheme, 2006 and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner for family pension is not tenable. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER IN REJOINDERS: 4. Petitioner has filed separate Rejoinders to the separate Replies filed by Respondents No.1 to 5 denying the fact that husband of the petitioner had rendered ad hoc service. The averments made in the writ petition which were based on documentary evidence were reiterated by stating that service of petitioner’s husband was on contract basis from 09.08.2000 [Annexure P-1] till 07.03.2007 and he was regularized on 08.03.2007 [Annexure P-2. Contrary averments in Reply-Affidavits were also negated by the petitioner in the Rejoinders. (i). Prayer has been made to count contractual service rendered by the petitioner’s husband from 09.08.2000 to 07.03.2007 towards regular service rendered from 08.03.2007 till his death on 20.07.2011, for the purposes of pension/family pension. 5. Heard, Mr. Tek Chand, Learned Counsel, for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. 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’s husband, Late Dr. Prakash Chand, who had rendered contractual service from 09.08.2000 till 07.03.2007, followed by regular service from 08.03.2007 till his death on 20.07.2011, deserves to be counted as qualifying service towards regular service for the purposes of granting pension/family pension to the present petitioner being widow, for the following reasons:- CONTINUOUS CONTRACTUAL SERVICE FOLLOWED BY SUBSTANTIVE-REGULAR SERVICE QUALIFIES FOR PENSION: (i). Prakash Chand, who had rendered contractual service from 09.08.2000 till 07.03.2007, followed by regular service from 08.03.2007 till his death on 20.07.2011, deserves to be counted as qualifying service towards regular service for the purposes of granting pension/family pension to the present petitioner being widow, for the following reasons:- CONTINUOUS CONTRACTUAL SERVICE FOLLOWED BY SUBSTANTIVE-REGULAR SERVICE QUALIFIES FOR PENSION: (i). It is not disputed that husband of petitioner, Dr. Prakash Chand, was appointed as a Medical Officer on contract basis as per modified appointment orders dated 04.08.2000 [Annexure P-4], in pursuance to which he joined his contractual appointment as a Medical Officer on 09.08.2000. He rendered contractual service from 09.08.2000 till 07.03.2007 which was followed by regularization of the petitioner’s husband on 08.03.2007 [Annexure P-2]. It is not in dispute that after regularization on 08.03.2007 the petitioner’s husband, Dr. Prakash Chand, served as Medical Officer on regular basis till his death on 20.07.2011. The above factual matrix establishes that petitioner’s husband, Dr. Prakash Chand, had rendered 6 years and 7 months service on continuous contractual service from 09.08.2000 till 07.03.2007, which was followed by substantive regular service from 08.03.2007 till his death on 20.07.2011 for about 4 years and 4 months (ii). Claim of the petitioner, being the widow for family pension, was rejected by Respondent No.5- Accountant General on 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] by treating the service from 2000 to 2007 as on adhoc service and by taking the stand that adhoc service does not count for qualifying service for pension in terms of communication dated 10.09.2008 [Annexure P-6]. The Rejection Orders dated 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] on the face of it is vitiated by non- application of mind, when, as per the modified appointment orders dated 04.08.2000 [Annexure P-4] and joining report dated 09.08.2000 [Annexure P-1] and the stand of the Official Respondents No.1 to 4 in Reply-Affidavit admits in clear terms that petitioner’s husband had rendered contractual service from 09.08.2000 till 07.03.2007 which was followed by regularization on the same post from 08.03.2007 till his death on 20.07.2011. In this backdrop, Rejection Orders on the face of it, is perverse and the same cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Rejection Orders dated 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] is rendered inoperative and the same is quashed and set aside. REJECTION ORDER DEHORS STATUTORY RULES UNSUSTAINABLE: (iii). In this backdrop, Rejection Orders on the face of it, is perverse and the same cannot be permitted to operate to the prejudice of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Rejection Orders dated 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] is rendered inoperative and the same is quashed and set aside. REJECTION ORDER DEHORS STATUTORY RULES UNSUSTAINABLE: (iii). Respondent No.5-Accountant General had rejected the claim on 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] for counting the adhoc service for family pension is vitiated by non-application of mind for the reason that the service rendered by petitioner’s husband, Dr. Prakash Chand from 09.08.2000 till 07.03.2007 was a contractual service which was followed by regularization on 08.03.2007 [Annexure P-2]. The above stand of Respondent No.5- Accountant General, in considered view of this Court, is not tenable for the reason that as per Office Memorandum dated 28.03.1988 the distinction between permanent and temporary service stands obliterated under Rules 2 and 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, which read as under:- “Rule 2 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972: (2) No distinction between permanent and temporary employees in the application of Pension Rules. – (i) Confirmation will be made only once in the service of an official which will be in the entry grade. (ii) Confirmation is delinked from the availability of permanent vacancy in the grade. In other words, an officer who has successfully completed the probation may be considered for confirmation. (iii) Since all the persons who complete probation in the first appointment will be declared as permanent, the present distinction between permanent and temporary employees for grant of pension and other pensionary benefits will cease to exist. [G.I., Dept., of Per. & Trg., O.M. No. 18011/1/86-Estt. (D), dated the 28th March, 1988 ] [4.1 (A) and 4.4.]” “Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972: 17. [G.I., Dept., of Per. & Trg., O.M. No. 18011/1/86-Estt. (D), dated the 28th March, 1988 ] [4.1 (A) and 4.4.]” “Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972: 17. Counting of service on contract – (1) A person who is initially engaged by the Government on a contract for a specified period and is subsequently appointed to the same or another post in a substantive capacity in a pensionable establishment without interruption of duty, may opt either:- (a) to retain the Government contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund with interest thereon including any other compensation for that service; or (b) to agree to refund to the Government the monetary benefits referred to in Clause (a) or to forgo the same if they have not been paid to him and count in lieu thereof the service for which the aforesaid monetary benefits may have been payable. (2) The option under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated to the Head of Office under intimation to the Accounts Officer within a period of three months from the date of issue of the order of permanent transfer to pensionable service, or if the Government servant is on leave on that day, within three months of his return from leave, whichever is later. (3) If no communication is received by the Head of Office within the period referred to in sub rule (2), the Government servant shall be deemed to have opted for the retention of the monetary benefits payable or paid to him on account of service rendered on contract.” (iv). Even the plea in rejection orders that once the petitioner’s husband was regularized on 08.03.2007 i.e. after 15.05.2003 therefore, the petitioner’s husband was to be governed by Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules notified on 17.08.2006 as applicable to persons appointed after 15.05.2003, is unsustainable, for the reason that this embargo shall apply in a case where a person is appointed on or after 15.05.2003 without having rendered any service before 15.05.2003, which qualifies for pension. The above embargo is neither applicable nor attracted in instant case, where the petitioner’s husband had rendered contractual service, upon due selection, as Medical Officer before 15.05.2003 i.e. 09.08.2000 to 07.03.2007 and such contractual service was uninterrupted and was followed by substantive-regular service on same post of Medical Officer from 08.03.2007 till death on 20.07.2011. The above embargo is neither applicable nor attracted in instant case, where the petitioner’s husband had rendered contractual service, upon due selection, as Medical Officer before 15.05.2003 i.e. 09.08.2000 to 07.03.2007 and such contractual service was uninterrupted and was followed by substantive-regular service on same post of Medical Officer from 08.03.2007 till death on 20.07.2011. In these circumstances, once the petitioner’s husband late Shri Prakash Chand has rendered service on contract prior to 15.05.2003 and such service was continuous/uninterrupted and was followed by substantive-regular service on same post and the entire service rendered on post of Medical Officer from 09.08.2000 till death on 20.07.2011 qualifies for pension under Rule 2 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, as admitted in communication dated 10.09.2008 [Annexure P-6], then, the rejection orders cannot deny the benefit of counting of “contractual service towards regular service” as “qualifying service” for pension, which is admissible under statutory Rules. Thus, the rejection order is set-aside. Even in the communication dated 10.09.2008 [Annexure P-6] the Respondents have admitted that contractual service is to be counted with regular service for pension/family pension, under Rule 17 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972. The operative part of communication dated 10.09.2008 [Annexure P-6] reads as under:- “.................So far as counting of service rendered on contract basis is concerned, such cases are to be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Rule-17 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972.” In the above backdrop, the plea for denying family pension to the petitioner [as in Annexure P-5], is not tenable and as the rights of the petitioner for pension/family pension in terms of Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, carry weight and the same cannot be denied to the petitioner. (v). Issue as to whether contractual service was countable as qualifying service for pension upon regularization on same or other post on superannuation as per Rule 2 and 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules is no longer res-integra in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (v). Issue as to whether contractual service was countable as qualifying service for pension upon regularization on same or other post on superannuation as per Rule 2 and 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules is no longer res-integra in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272, mandating that past service rendered as contractual employee is followed by service rendered on same or another post in a substantive capacity, in a pensionable establishment is to be treated as qualifying service for pension, subject to exercising an option, if any, as may be prescribed by the State Authorities, in the following terms: - “9. The Learned Advocate General is correct in his interpretation, inasmuch as a facial reading of Rule 2(g) would indicate that contractual employees are excluded from the pale of Pension Rules. However, what is significant is that the rule itself in its opening terms saves the application of other provisions of the pension rules: “Save as otherwise provided in these rules”. If the opening phrase of Rule 2 were to be understood in this context, any interpretation of Rule 17 as is urged by the State would render such substantive provision redundant. Rule 17 was engrafted essentially to cater to the eventuality, where the employees working on contract basis were regularized at a later stage. It is only for the purposes of pension that the past service as a contractual employee is to be taken into account. 10. So far as the other arguments with respect to the voluntariness when the employees enters into contractual services is concerned, this Court is unpersuaded by the submission because those terms were applicable as long as the employees remained on contract. However, his or her status ceased upon regularization. 11. In view of the above reasoning, this court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal however, the following directions are issued: (i) The state shall take immediate steps to indicate the mode and manner of exercising option by all the employees concerned (who had been regularized after spells of contractual employment) regardless of the dates on which they were engaged i.e. prior to the year 2003 or subsequently, within a time frame, of within eight weeks from today. (ii) After receiving the options within the time indicated in the notice, the concerned employee(s) who exercise the relevant options should be notified about the amounts they would have to remit in case any amount towards contribution is required, clearly. (iii) The options should be processed and completed within eight weeks from the last date of receiving options. (iv) Time limit for payment too should be indicated and entire process should be completed within four months and all orders fixing pensions or family pension as the case may be, shall be issued.” (vi). A similar issue as to whether contractual service upon regularization on the same or other post was to be counted for pension under Rule 2 and Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, stands re-affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of, S.D. Jayaprakash and Others Versus Union of India and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 973, in the following terms:- “3. The short facts that are necessary are as follows. The appellants were appointed as Data Entry Operators under the Plan Scheme called ‘Rationalization of Data Processing Facilities’ on temporary and contractual basis between 1996 and 1999. Pursuant to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal 3 dated 01.04.2013 the respondents issued an Office Memorandum dated 5.1.2015 to regularise the appellants’ service from a prospective date, i.e., from the date of issuance of this order. Pursuantly, the appellants were appointed on a regular basis by order dated 01.04.2015, w.e.f. 05.01.2015. The appellants preferred an Original Application before the CAT, with a prayer to regularize their services from the date of initial appointment or at least from the date of completing 10 years of service, and to protect their pay and to grant seniority, service benefits and pension by counting their period of contractual service. The CAT allowed the same by order dated 19.01.2016 and directed as follows: “31. Therefore, after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we order as follows: 1. The pay and other allowances drawn by the applicants prior to their appointment on regular basis on 1.4.2015 shall be protected and they shall be allowed the pay being drawn by them immediately prior to their regularisation as their basic pay as on 1.4.2015. Their annual increment shall be determined accordingly. 2. The pay and other allowances drawn by the applicants prior to their appointment on regular basis on 1.4.2015 shall be protected and they shall be allowed the pay being drawn by them immediately prior to their regularisation as their basic pay as on 1.4.2015. Their annual increment shall be determined accordingly. 2. The applicants from whose salary, the GPF and other contributions made right from the date of their appointment on contract basis shall be entitled to come under the old pension scheme and the entire period of service right from the date of initial appointment on contract basis shall be counted towards pensionary benefits. 3. For the purpose of seniority, ACP and other service benefits etc., the regular service of the applicants shall be reckoned from the date of completion of 10 years of service from their initial appointments on contract basis. 32. The Respondents are directed to fix the salary of the applicants and grant the consequential benefits in terms of the above direction within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. The respondents challenged the above order by way of a writ petition, which was partly allowed by the impugned order. The High Court set aside the CAT’s directions to the extent of counting the period of contractual service for grant of seniority, service benefits, and pension on the ground that the initial appointment was on a contractual basis and not pursuant to the recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission. It held that the appellants will be entitled to regularisation and its consequential benefits only from 01.04.2015. However, the Court upheld the CAT’s direction regarding protection of pay while fixing the pay scale. 9. In light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), the contractual service period rendered prior to the appellants’ regularization in 2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17. 9. In light of the clear language of Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as its interpretation in Sheela Devi (supra), the contractual service period rendered prior to the appellants’ regularization in 2015 must be counted towards the payment of their pensionary benefits in accordance with the mechanism set out in Rule 17. In line with the directions issued in Sheela Devi (supra) extracted hereinabove, we direct the respondent Union of India to take immediate steps and indicate the mode and manner for the appellants to exercise the option provided under Rule 17 of the Pension Rules as well as to notify the amounts that the appellants would have to remit in case they opt for grant of pension under the Rules.” (vii). The Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2045 of 2016, titled as Shiv Sharan Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, decided on 07.05.2025 after reiterating the principles laid down in the case of Sheela Devi, S.D. Jayaprakash, has held that the contractual service followed by substantive appointment on same or contractual post is countable as qualifying service for pension subject to exercising option or refund of Contributory Provident Fund alongwith interest, in the following terms:- 2. Case set up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Junior Basic Teacher [JBT] on contract basis on 28.06.1996 and his contract was renewed from time to time and he served as such uninterruptedly till 13.12.2002 in Government Primary School, Domehar, Tehsil Kandaghat, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh and has rendered about 6 years 5 months and 15 days of contractual service as JBT. (i). While working as JBT, the petitioner upon due selection was appointed on the post of Art & Craft Teacher and he joined in Government Middle School, Koon, on 13.12.2002 and he served till his superannuation on 30.06.2012, after rendering about 9 years 6 months and 19 days of service on the post of Art & Craft Teacher under the respondents. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure-PA dated 23.02.2012, showing incumbency on the post of JBT [contract] Annexure-PB from 28.06.1996 till 13.12.2002 and the fact that his contractual appointment was renewed from time to time by the respondents and he continued as such without any break in service. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure-PA dated 23.02.2012, showing incumbency on the post of JBT [contract] Annexure-PB from 28.06.1996 till 13.12.2002 and the fact that his contractual appointment was renewed from time to time by the respondents and he continued as such without any break in service. Perusal of Annexure-PC reveals that the petitioner joined on post of Art & Craft Teacher on 13.12.2002 on regular basis, in regular pay scale and he served as such till his superannuation on 30.06.2012. In above background, the petitioner had filed a CWP No. 1009 of 2013 [renumbered and registered as TA No.1833 of 2015], with the following prayers :- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant to the petitioner, the pensionary benefits and other eligible benefits, by counting the service rendered by him on contract basis as J.B.T. for the purpose of qualifying service or alternatively. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to grant to the petitioner the pension and other eligible benefits by treating the period of 9 years six months and 19 days, as complete ten years (qualifying services of 10 years), as per the provisions of Rule-49(3) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972: (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to disburse the arrears of the pension to the petitioner with in the period of one month alongwith interest @12% per annum.” 13. The Impugned Order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF] is erroneous in law, for the reason, that once the petitioner was appointed on the post of JBT on contract and had served from 28.06.1996 to 13.12.2002 and was thereafter appointed on another post of Art & Craft Teacher on 13.12.2002 on regular basis and had served on this post till superannuation on 30.06.2012; and in these circumstances, once both the appointments i.e. contractual service on post of JBT and the substantive-regular service were rendered by the petitioner on the post of Art & Craft Teacher were service rendered in pensionable establishment(s) and even though the State Government had declared these establishment(s) to be non-pensionable for persons appointed on or after 15.05.2003 therefore, the petitioner is entitled for pension under the CCS [Pension] Rules, which material aspects have been ignored by Learned Tribunal, while passing Impugned Order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF] and therefore, the Impugned Order which ignores the eligibility, entitlement and the right of the petitioner for pension w.e.f. 01.07.2012 by giving a complete go-bye to the statutory rules is patently erroneous in law and the denial of pension suffers from infirmity. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is quashed and set-aside. 14. On query by this Court, another aspect supports the claim of the petitioner. Though the State Authorities have declared its establishment as non- pensionable for employees who were appointed on or after 15.05.2003, yet this Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the State Authorities have issued a notification on 04.05.2023, {as discussed in Para 6 in the case of Sheela Devi, supra} reviving/ restoring the Old Pension Scheme entitling an employee for pension under the Central Civil Services [Pension] Rules 1972 even for persons who were appointed and had retired between the period from 15.05.2003 to 31.03.2023 for pension w.e.f. 01.04.2023, subject to exercising an option, as per Old Pension Scheme. Thus, once Old Pension Scheme stands revived/revoked, coupled with the fact, that the qualifying service of the petitioner, by taking into account the contractual service, followed by regular service, comes to more than 16 years 1 month and 2 days, as referred to above viz. more than 10 years qualifying service, then, the claim of the petitioner for pension either w.e.f. 01.07.2012 or w.e.f. 01.04.2023 [whichever is beneficial] carries weight and the claim of the petitioner for pension is accordingly allowed, in favour of the petitioner. 15. more than 10 years qualifying service, then, the claim of the petitioner for pension either w.e.f. 01.07.2012 or w.e.f. 01.04.2023 [whichever is beneficial] carries weight and the claim of the petitioner for pension is accordingly allowed, in favour of the petitioner. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not presses relief (ii), based on Rule 49(3) of CCS [Pension] Rules, in these proceedings. 16. Based on the above discussion, the Impugned Order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF] passed by Learned Tribunal in TA No.1833 of 2015 [earlier CWP No.1009 of 2013], being contrary to the Statutory Rules and the mandate of law, in Sheela Devi & S.D. Jayaprakash [supra], cannot sustain and therefore, the same is interdicted and is set aside, by this Court, in these proceedings. (viii). A similar claim came up for adjudication before this Court in CWPOA No. 5507 of 2020 Oma Wati and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 21.08.2023, upholding the claim for pension by counting the contractual service rendered on a post uninterruptedly, which was followed by substantive-regular service rendered on another post as qualifying service for pension, as under: “2. Petitioner No.1 Oma Wati was initially appointed on contract basis against the post of Junior Basis Teacher (JBT) on 24.7.1998 and served as such till 24.8.2000.Thereafter,she was appointed as Shastri on regular basis and she is serving as such since 25.8.2000. 8. Despite repeated observations as well as directions of the Courts in numerous cases that State must behave like a Model Employer, State, irrespective of persons in power and change in Guard, successively keeps on to formulate, adopt and practise exploitative policies as a device to avoid extension of legitimate rights of the employees for which they are otherwise entitled. On intervention of the Courts directing the State to extend such benefits like pay scale, increment, leave and counting of service etc., State every time tries to deprive the employee from such benefit by changing nomenclature of post and scheme to continue with practice of temporary/ad- hoc appointments. Appointment of Voluntary Teachers, ad-hoc Teachers, Vidya Upasaks, Contract Teachers, PARA Teachers, PAT, PTA and SMC Teachers are examples of clever phraseology devised by State to overcome directions of the Courts in order to avoid permanent appointments by appointing ad-hoc/Temporary Teachers depriving them of service benefits available to regular employees. Appointment of Voluntary Teachers, ad-hoc Teachers, Vidya Upasaks, Contract Teachers, PARA Teachers, PAT, PTA and SMC Teachers are examples of clever phraseology devised by State to overcome directions of the Courts in order to avoid permanent appointments by appointing ad-hoc/Temporary Teachers depriving them of service benefits available to regular employees. When Courts upheld the entitlement of ad-hoc employees for service benefits, State came with Scheme for appointment of Voluntary Teachers. Again, on intervention of the Court, State continued changing the name of Policy but for appointment on exploitative terms. Therefore, we are of the opinion that all these terms are similar temporary appointments irrespective of their nomenclature. Therefore, verdict of the Court regarding extension of service benefits with respect to one kind of temporary appointment is equally applicable to similar temporary appointment with different nomenclature. 9. The claims of the petitioners are squarely covered by the judgments in Sheela Devi, Jagdish Chand as well as Youdhishther Kumar Sharma, referred supra. Therefore, the aforesaid judgments shall mutatis mutandis be applicable to the present cases also, subject to clarification that petitioner No.1 shall be entitled for counting of contract service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits, whereas, benefits to the husband of petitioner No 2 shall be extended by counting his contract service for the purpose of annual increments as well as pensionary benefits. 10. Present petition was filed on 30.10.2018. The actual consequential financial benefits shall, however be restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. Due and admissible benefits be released to the petitioners within a period of three months from today.” (ix). A coordinate Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA 7216 of 2020, in Re: Kewal Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 10.07.2024 allowed the pension by counting contractual service rendered as JBT, followed by service rendered on substantive-regular basis as a Drawing Teacher till retirement as qualifying service for pension, in view of Rule 17 and the mandate of law in the case of Sheela Devi [supra] in the following terms:- “2. Petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis against the post of Junior Basis Teacher (JBT) on 24.09.1996 and served as such till 13.7.2003. Thereafter, he was appointed as Drawing Teacher on regular basis and he served as such since 14.7.2003 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.05.2018. 14. Petitioner was initially appointed on contract basis against the post of Junior Basis Teacher (JBT) on 24.09.1996 and served as such till 13.7.2003. Thereafter, he was appointed as Drawing Teacher on regular basis and he served as such since 14.7.2003 till the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.05.2018. 14. The claim of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments in Sheela Devi, Jagdish Chand as well as Youdhishther Kumar Sharma, cases referred supra. Therefore, ratio of the aforesaid judgments as well as reasons assigned therein for extending the benefits of contract service to the employee shall mutatis mutandis applicable to the present case also, and petitioner shall be entitled for counting of contract service for the purpose of all pensionary benefits. 15. Present petition was filed on 10.7.2019. The actual consequential financial benefits shall, however, be restricted to three years prior to filing of the writ petition. Due and admissible benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from today.” Based on the mandate of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheela Devi reiterated in the case of S.D. Jayaprakash and followed by this Court in the case of Oma Wati, Kewal Singh and Shiv Sharan Sharma [supra], this Court has no hesitation to hold that the uninterrupted and continuous contractual service rendered by the petitioner’s husband from 09.08.2000 till 07.03.2007 which was followed by substantive regular service rendered upon regularization on same post of Medical Officer from 08.03.2008 till his death on 20.07.2011 is to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Accordingly, the Impugned Orders dated 05.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] depriving the petitioner’s husband of the benefit of counting of contractual service with regular pensionary benefits being contrary to statutory Rules 2 and 17 and the mandate of law in the case of Sheela Devi, S.D. Jayaprakash, Oma Wati, Kewal Singh and Shiv Sharan Sharma [supra] cannot sustain and the Impugned order is quashed and set-aside. CLAIM OF PRESENT PETITIONER FOR FAMILY PENSION: 7. Now, coming to the claim of the petitioner being a widow for family pension, upon death of Government Servant has been outlined in Rule-54 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, which reads as under:- “54. CLAIM OF PRESENT PETITIONER FOR FAMILY PENSION: 7. Now, coming to the claim of the petitioner being a widow for family pension, upon death of Government Servant has been outlined in Rule-54 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, which reads as under:- “54. Family Pension, 1964 (1) The provisions of this rule shall apply – (a) to a Government servant entering service in a pensionable establishment on or after the 1st January, 1964; and (b) to a Government servant who was in service on the 31st December, 1963 and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government Employees, 1964, contained in the Ministry of Finance, Office Memorandum No.9 (16)-E. V (A)/ 63, dated the 31st December, 1963, as in force immediately before the commencement of these rules. [NOTE. - The provisions of this rule will also extend, from 22nd September, 1977, to Government servants on pensionable establishments who retired/died before 31-12-1963, as also to those who were alive on 31-12-1963, but had opted out of 1964 Scheme.] (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule 13-B and without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies – (i) after completion of one year of continuous service; or (ii) before completion of one year of continuous service provided the deceased Government servant concerned immediately prior to his appointment to the service or post was examined by the appropriate medical authority and declared fit by that authority for Government service ; or (iii) after retirement from service and was on the date of death in receipt of a pension, or compassionate allowance, referred to in these rules, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to Family Pension (hereinafter in this rule referred to as family pension) under the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government Employees, 1964, the amount of which shall be determined at a uniform rate of 30% of basic pay subject to a minimum of three thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem and a maximum of twenty-seven thousand rupees per mensem. EXPLANATION. EXPLANATION. – The expression `one year of continuous service' wherever it occurs in this rule shall be construed to include `less than one year of continuous service' as defined in clause (ii).” (14) For the purposes of this rule,— (a) "continuous service" means service rendered in a temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment and does not include (i) period of suspension, if any; and (ii) period of service, if any, rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years; (b) "family" in relation to a Government servant means (i) wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant. Note 1.—Deleted. NoTE 2.— Deleted. (ia) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery 31***] and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery. (ii) unmarried son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, including such son and daughter adopted legally; (iii) dependent parents; (iv). dependent disabled siblings (i.e. brother or sister) of a Government servant. (c) "pay" means (i) the emoluments as specified in Rule 33, or (ii) the average emoluments as referred to in Rule 34 if the emoluments of the deceased Government servant have been reduced during the last ten months of his service otherwise than as penalty: In the backdrop of Rule 54 of CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, the admissibility of family pension is available to eligible family members [in terms of the aforesaid Rule], which includes widow upon death of a Government Servant after having completed one year’s of continuous service. Sub-Rule (14) of Rule 54 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, 1972, defines the expression “continuous service”, which includes service rendered in a temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment, but with an “exclusion clause” that service rendered during suspension or before attaining the age of 18 years will not come within the ambit of “continuous service” for reckoning eligibility on the basis of one year’s continuous service for family pension. Indisputedly, in instant case, petitioner’s husband had rendered contractual service followed by regular service which works out to be more than 10 years and 11 months [w.e.f. 09.08.2000 till his death on 20.07.2011], which is admittedly much more than the requirement of one year’s of continuous service and therefore, in these circumstances, this Court upholds the right and entitlement of the petitioner, being widow of Late Dr. Prakash Chand for family pension from the date of death of her husband on 20.07.2011 or such like due date in accordance with the CCS [Pension] Rules 1972, with all consequential benefits. DEPRIVATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT OF FAMILY PENSION IGNORING STATUTORY RULES ARBITRARY: 8. Pension/family pension is a social security measure, which accrues in terms of statutory rules or the scheme, in recognition of the service rendered by an employee/deceased employee. State Authorities cannot deprive a person/family member of these legal entitlements by treating it as a bounty and charity. Deprivation of social security accrued right and legal entitlements without giving prior notice and without affording a personal hearing and without any authority of law and that too by curtailing the benefits flowing from Statutory Rules [Rule 2 and 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules] and by giving a go-bye to the mandate of law in Sheela Devi, S.D. Jayaprakash, Oma Wati, Kewal Singh and Shiv Sharan Sharma [supra] needs to be interdicted and declared inoperative. Accordingly, the rejection order and the denial of family pension to the petitioner being a widow, being contrary to Articles 14, 16, 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and Statutory Rules, is set-aside. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant writ petition, is allowed, in the following terms:- (i) Rejection Order dated 5.12.2011 [Annexure P-5] passed by Respondent No. 5-Accountant General is quashed and set-aside; (ii). State Authorities are directed to count contractual service rendered by petitioner’s husband late Dr. Prakash Chand as Medical Officer from 09.08.2000 to 07.03.2007 to be counted with substantive-regular service rendered from 08.03.2007 as Medical Officer till death on 20.07.2011 as qualifying service for pensionary benefits; (iii). State Authorities are directed to release Family Pension to the petitioner [being widow of deceased employee] from date of death of deceased employee w.e.f. 20.07.2011 onwards, as revised from time to time with all consequential benefits; (iv). State Authorities are directed to release Family Pension to the petitioner [being widow of deceased employee] from date of death of deceased employee w.e.f. 20.07.2011 onwards, as revised from time to time with all consequential benefits; (iv). State Authorities are directed to release Family Pension with all consequential arrears before 31.01.2026; failing which State Authorities shall be liable for payment of benefits, with interest @ 6% per annum thereafter till realization; (v) Costs made easy for respective parties. 10. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.