( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No: 2045 of 2016 Decided on: 7th May, 2025 __________________________________________________________ Shiv Sharan Sharma ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others …Respondents Coram: Honble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting ? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 3 & 4-State. Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.2. [ Per Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioner, Shiv Sharan Sharma, a retired Art & Craft Teacher from the Elementary Education Department of the State Government, has come up before this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 09.05.2016, [Annexure-PF] passed by the Learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 2 - Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal [referred to herein as the ‘Tribunal’] in TA No.1833 of 2015, earlier CWP No.1009 of 2013, disallowing his claim for pension, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2012 w.e.f. 01.07.2012 onwards. FACTUAL MATRIX LEADING TO T.A. NO.1833 OF 2015 [EARLIER CWP NO.1009 OF 2013]: 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. 2(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 ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 3 - 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. 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 ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 4 - 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.” PROCEEDINGS BEFORE STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN TA NO.1833 OF 2015: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice by this Court on 15.03.2013, the matter was admitted with directions to respondents to file the reply. On establishment of State Administrative Tribunal, the matter was transferred to Learned Tribunal and the same was registered as TA No. 1833 of 2015, when, it was finally heard. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 3 IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 4. The Respondents No.1 & 3 filed a reply- affidavit in the aforesaid CWP/TA contending that the petitioner is not entitled for pension by counting the contractual service as the petitioner has not completed 10 years of qualifying service and there is no provision for counting of contractual service for pension. It is further averred that as per Rule 2 of CCS [Pension] Rules, the pension rules were ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 5 - not applicable to contract incumbents. It was averred that the case of the petitioner is not covered under Rule 17 of CCS Pension Rules. So far as the prayer for benefit under Rule 49(3) of CCS Pension Rules is concerned, the reply-affidavit stated that the petitioner cannot be extended the benefit of this Rule and the service rendered by petitioner of 9 years 6 months and 19 days cannot be reckoned as 20 half years or 10 years of qualifying service, for the reason, that the benefit of half year i.e. 6 months was admissible, in case, the petitioner had rendered 9 years and 9 months of service. In above background, prayer was made for dismissing the claim of petitioner. STAND OF RESPONDENT No.2-ACCOUNTANT GENERAL: 5. Respondent No.2 had filed a separate reply on the affidavit of Deputy Accountant General [Administration], stating therein, that as regards counting of contractual service towards qualifying service is concerned, it is an administrative matter to be dealt with by the respondent department. ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 6 - Regarding the claim under Rule 49(3) of CCS [Pension] Rules is concerned, the reply-affidavit stated that the petitioner is not entitled for this benefit as he has rendered less than 10 years of qualifying service. However, reply-affidavit stated that other retiral benefits like gratuity etc. stands sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 6. In rebuttal, petitioner has filed a rejoinder dated 19.09.2015, reiterating his claim for pension for counting the contractual service and the claim for pension on the basis of Rule 49(3) of CCS [Pension] Rules. The other averments with respect to the claim under Rules 13 and 17 of CCS Pension Rules were reiterated, after denying the averments contained in the reply-affidavit. IMPUGNED ORDER BY STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL: 7. TA No. 1833 of 2015 [earlier CWP No.1009 of 2013] was decided by Learned Administrative Tribunal on 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF]. The claim of the petitioner for pension on the basis of Rule 49(3) of CCS [Pension] Rules was negated by Learned ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 7 - Tribunal, on the ground, that the benefit of one half year i.e. 6 months was admissible, in case, the petitioner had rendered 9 years 9 months of service, whereas, the petitioner had rendered 9 years 6 months 19 days of regular service and therefore, the claim based on Rule 49(3) was not tenable. The Administrative Tribunal held that the judgment in LPA No.285 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Joginder Singh, was distinguishable, as aforesaid Joginder Singh had rendered 9 years 9 months 5 days of qualifying service and therefore, he was held entitled to one half year [6 months] making him eligible, which is not the fact-situation in this case. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for pension, based on Rule 49(3) of CCS [Pension] Rules was disallowed by the Tribunal. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE TO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.05.2016 [ANNEXURE-PF] IN TA No 1833 OF 2015: 8. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.05.2016, passed by the Tribunal on the ground, firstly, that Learned Tribunal erred in not considering ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 8 - the claim for pension by counting the contractual service followed by regular service for pension in terms of Rules 13 and 17 of CCS Pension Rules, secondly, the claim based on Rule 49 of CCS [Pension] Rules was wrongly disallowed by the Tribunal and thirdly, the Tribunal had erred in not considering the entitlement of the petitioner for pension in view of Rules 13 and 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules and lastly, the impugned order was contrary to the mandate of this Court, which stands affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. Heard Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 3 & 4- State and Mr. Shyam Singh Chauhan, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.2. STATUTORY RULES GOVERNING THE ISSUE: 10. Before proceeding to analyze the matter it would be necessary to have a recap of the applicable Statutory Rules i.e. the CCS (Pension) Rules, so as to answer the controversy in issue, as to whether the contractual service rendered by ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 9 - an employee on a post which is followed by substantive-regular appointment on the same or another post is to be counted as qualifying service for pension needs to be examined, in the backdrop of Rule 13, 14 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which read as under :- 13. Commencement of qualifying service Subject to the provisions of these rules, 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: Provided further that : (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Group `D' service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17th April, 1950, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose, and (b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity. (c) the provisions of clause (b) shall not be applicable in the cases of counting of military service for civil pension under Rule 19. ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 10 - 14. Conditions subject to which service qualifies (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify, unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression "Service" means service under the Government and paid by that Government from the Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund administered by that Government but does not include service in a non- pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by that Government. (3) ….xxx… 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). (2). The option under sub-rule (1) shall be communicated to the Head of Office ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 11 - 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.” ANALYSIS: 11. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record and in the light of Rule 13, 14 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, this Court is of the considered view, that 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], deserves to be quashed and set aside ; and the claim of the petitioner for pension deserves to be allowed for the following reasons :- NON-CONSIDERATION OF FIRST PRAYER BY LEARNED TRIBUNAL-VITIATES IMPUGNED ORDER : 11(i). Perusal of the records in TA No.1833 of 2015 [earlier CWP No.1009 of 2013] reveals that ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 12 - the petitioner had made twin prayers i.e. firstly, for counting of contractual service, rendered on the post of JBT uninterruptedly and without break followed by regularization as Art & Craft Teacher during retirement as qualifying service for pension and secondly, for extending benefit of pension under Rule 49(3) of CCS [Pension] Rules, by treating his 9 years 6 months and 19 days service as completing 10 years. 11(ii). Perusal of case records in TA No.1833 of 2015 and the Impugned Order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF], reveals that the Tribunal has not at all considered the first prayer of the petitioner claiming pension by counting contractual service as qualifying service for pension; but has only considered and disallowed second prayer claiming pension by giving benefits of Rule 49(3) of CCS [Pension] Rules. In these circumstances, once the petitioner has never given up his first prayer then Learned Tribunal had erred in neither considering nor in adjudicating upon the first prayer, which has resulted in causing prejudice to Writ Petitioner/ ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 13 - Original Application, resulting in infirmity in the Impugned Order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF]. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF], which ignores the claim in first prayer altogether, needs to be interfered with and is accordingly quashed and set aside, on this ground. FIRST PRAYER FOR PENSION BY COUNTING CONTRACTUAL SERVICE WITH SUBSTANTIVE- REGULAR SERVICE ON ANOTHER POST VALID: 11(iii). Now coming to the analysis of the first prayer, claiming pension by counting contractual service rendered by the petitioner on the post of JBT from 28.06.1996 till 13.12.2002 [i.e. 6 years 5 months and 15 days] together with the service rendered on the post of Art & Craft Teacher on regular basis from 13.12.2002 till superannuation on 30.06.2012 [i.e. 9 years 6 months and 19 days]. The claim carries weight, for the reason, that once the petitioner had rendered service on the post of JBT on contract basis in a temporary capacity and such contractual service continued interruptedly till substantive-regular appointment on another post of Art & Craft Teacher, then, ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 14 - as per Rule 13 and 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, the contractual service rendered on the post of JBT which was followed by substantive-regular service rendered on another post of Art & Craft Teacher, upon due selection, is to be reckoned as qualifying service for pension. Thus, in this backdrop, petitioner is held entitled for pension by counting the contractual service rendered on the post of JBT [contract] as qualifying service with the substantive-regular service rendered on another post of Arts and Craft Teacher in a pensionable establishment as qualifying service for pension and once the total service {i.e. contractual service and regular service] comes to about 16 years 1 month and 2 days i.e. more than the minimum requisite qualifying service of 10 years; then, the petitioner is eligible and is entitled for pension under Rule 49 of CCS [Pension] Rules. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF], passed by ignoring the claim and right of the petitioner for pension is erroneous and not sustainable. ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 15 - CONTRACTUAL SERVICE NOT COUNTABLE AS QUALIFYING SERVICE IF EMPLOYEE FALLS IN EXCLUSION CLAUSES-WHICH ARE ABSENT IN INSTANT CASE: 11(iv). Notably, the claim of an employee for pension by counting contractual service rendered on a post uninterruptedly with substantive-regular service rendered on same or another post was not to be counted as qualifying service if such service fell within the ambit of exclusion clauses in Rule 13, 14 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules i.e. the contractual service was not rendered on a post ; was an interrupted service ; was rendered in a non-pensionable establishment ; the duties and pay was not regulated by the government ; and such other disqualification under the Rules. Once the case of the petitioner does not falls within the exclusion clauses, in the light of Annexure PA dated 23.02.2012 and Annexure-PB showing incumbency qua the service rendered by the petitioner on post of JBT [contract] from 28.06.1996 till 13.12.2002 coupled with the fact such contractual appointment was renewed from time to time by the respondents and as such was ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 16 - without any break in service therefore, based on Rules 13, 14 and 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and even on facts. Thus, claim of the petitioner for pension has merit and the petitioner deserves to be given pension by counting contractual service, rendered on the post of JBT uninterruptedly [though by renewing contractual employment was without break, which is clear from Annexure-PB], to be counted as qualifying service with the substantive- regular service rendered on another post of Art & Craft Teacher for pension upon superannuation on 30.06.2012. 11(v). Further, in terms of Rule 13 read with Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, service rendered on contract basis in a pensionable establishment, which is followed by substantive service rendered on the same or another post is countable as qualifying service for pension then, based on the entire qualifying service the petitioner is entitled for pension, subject to retaining the contributory provident fund or by opting to refund monetary benefits received which accrued from contributory ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 17 - provident fund or to forego the same, in case, no CPF benefit was received and then to count the contractual service for pension, in terms of the mandate of Rule 17 of the CCS [Pension] Rules, supra. 11(vi). The issue as to whether the contractual service was countable as qualifying service for pension upon regularization on same or other post of a person on superannuation became the subject matter of in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Sheela Devi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1272 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed 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 by exercising an option, if any, as may be prescribed by the State Authorities, for purposes of extending benefit of pension, 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 ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 18 - 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. ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 19 - (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.” 11(vii). A similar issue as to whether contractual service upon regularization on the same or other post was to be counted for pension under Rule 17 of CCS [Pension] Rules, was 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 ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 20 - 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 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.” ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 21 - 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. 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.” 11(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, ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 22 - upholding the claim for pension by counting the 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. When Courts upheld the ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 23 - 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. 11(ix). A coordinate Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA 7216 of 2020, in Re: Kewal Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh, decided ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 24 - on 10.07.2024 allowed the pension by counting the contractual service rendered as JBT on contract basis which was followed by service rendered on substantive-regular basis as drawing teacher till retirement as qualifying service for pension on the basis 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 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 ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 25 - benefits be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. 12. Based on factual matrix and the material on record and the fact that the issue as to whether the contractual service rendered by an employee upon regularization on same or other post, is to be reckoned as qualifying service as pension, has been held to be countable for pension, in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sheela Devi and S.D. Jayaprakash [supra], and in facts of instant case, the uninterrupted contractual service rendered by the petitioner on the post of JBT from 28.06.1996 to 13.12.2006 [6 years 5 months and 15 days] followed by substantive-regular service rendered on another post of Art & Craft Teacher on regular basis, from 13.12.2002 till superannuation on 30.06.2012 [9 years 6 months and 19 days regular service] is countable as qualifying service for pension. Once the total service works out to be more than 16 years 1 month and 3 days, viz is, more than the minimum qualifying service of 10 years; and ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 26 - these relevant aspects have been ignored by Learned Tribunal, and therefore, the Impugned Order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF], ignoring the admissibility of qualifying service entitling him for pension, as per the statutory provision of Rule 17 of CCS Pension Rules and the mandate of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sheela Devi and S.D. Jayaprakash [supra] cannot sustain. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF] disallowing pension to petitioner-original applicant is quashed and set aside. 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 ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 27 - 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 ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 28 - 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner does ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 29 - 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. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 17. In view of the above discussions and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal, is allowed, in the following terms :- (i) Impugned order dated 09.05.2016 [Annexure-PF] passed by the State Administrative Tribunal [now abolished] in TA No.1833 of 2015 [earlier CWP No.1009 of 2013] is quashed and set aside; (ii) State Authorities-Respondents No.1, 3 & 4 are directed to process the case of the petitioner for pension w.e.f. 01.07.2012 within two months from today; (iii) Upon receipt of pension case, Respondent No.2 is directed to sanction and issue ( 2025:HHC:20448-DB ) - 30 - necessary Pension Payment Order to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.07.2012 or w.e.f. 01.04.2023; or observation made in Para 14 supra [whichever is beneficial] within one month thereafter; but not later than 15.08.2025; (iv) As a sequel to the directions in (i) to (iii) Respondents shall release pension with all consequential arrears to the petitioner on or before 15.09.2025; (v) Failure to release the pension alongwith arrears on or before 15.08.2025, shall entitle the petitioner for interest on such arrears of pension till realization; (vi) No order as to costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is disposed of and all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge May 07, 2025 (Chiranjeev)