2026:HHC:23978 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1309 of 2022 Reserved on: 16.06.2026. Decided on: 22.06.2026 Mani Ram (now deceased) through LRs. Dropati Devi & others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) For protection of last pay drawn in the District Federation Mandi and counting past services rendered in the District Federation by the petitioners for pension benefits. ii) to calculate amount of CPF alongwith interest to be deposited by the petitioners in the Government Account. iii) To order protection of last pay drawn in the District Federation Mandi and to order payment of arrears on account of such pay protection. iv) To revise the pension of the petitioners after addition of period of past service rendered in the District Federation alongwith all retirement benefits. v) To pay arrear of pension for the delayed period alongwith revised retirement benefits.” 2. The facts, as they emerge from the pleadings and 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23978 documents appended with the petition including the orders passed by erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1004 of 1991, titled Himachali Devi & others Versus The Mandi District Co-operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Limited Mandi & others, decided on 25.06.1993, are that original petitioner, namely, Mani Ram and petitioners No.2 to 4 were initially engaged as Salesmen and Clerks in Mandi District Co- operative Marketing & Consumers Federation from the year 1972 onwards. As said Federation was facing financial losses besides reduction of business, the applicants/petitioners apprehended termination of their services and in this backdrop, they approached the learned Tribunal. The Original Application filed by the applicants/petitioners was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by issuing a direction to the concerned respondents therein to explore the feasibility of alternative employment to the applicants/petitioners in Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings, Semi-Autonomous Bodies etc. In lieu thereof, the petitioners were appointed against the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar in the month of November, 1995. The appointment letter of one of the petitioners is appended with this petition as Annexure P-2. This appointment of the petitioners was in the Directorate of Co- operation. According to the petitioners, after their appointment in the said Department, they had submitted representations, demanding counting of the past service rendered by them with their 3 2026:HHC:23978 erstwhile employer for the purpose of pensionary benefits, but nothing was heard backfrom the respondents. According to the petitioners, all of them stood retired in the meanwhile and the State Government had also absorbed the services of Octroi staff of various local bodies in Government Departments in the year 1982, whose pay was protected and whose past services were also protected. Further, as per the petitioners, the General Administration Department of the State Government had also absorbed the services of certain employees of HIMFED in the year 2001, whose pay was protected and past service was also counted for pensionary benefits. It is also the contention of the petitioners that in terms of communication dated 01.08.1995, the Finance Department of State of Himachal Pradesh also provides for pay protection and counting of past service of surplus staff of Public Sector Undertaking absorbed in the Government Department for the purpose of qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Primarily, on the analogy of these examples, the petitioners are before this Court praying for the reliefs enumerated hereinabove. 3. The stand of the respondent-Department is that the petitioners were employees of Mandi District Co-operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Limited, Mandi, H.P., which was a Co- operative Society registered under the Himachal Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1968. The Society was not a body owned, controlled or manged by the State Governemnt. Except the 4 2026:HHC:23978 regulatory control under the Act, the State Governemnt was not exercising any deep or pervasive control over the Society, nor was it appointing the employees in the Society. It is further the stand of the Department that seven employees of the said Co-operative Society were recruited in the respondent-Department in the year 1995. Thereafter, for the first time petitioners submitted the representation for counting their past services for pension was on 30.08.1999. Another representation was received in the year 2002 and in terms of Annexure R-1, dated 10.02.2003, the request of the petitioners for counting their past service for pensionary benefits was rejected. After said rejection, the employees again submitted a representation on 03.01.2004 and their case was again rejected vide Annexure R-2, dated 03.06.2004. According to the Department, thereafter, the petitioners have approached this Court after lapse of twenty years from the date of first rejection and the case was hopelessly time barred. 4. It is also the stand of the respondents that before the establishment of the State Civil Supply Corporation in the State, the work of distribution and supply of essential items under Public Distribution System was being carried out by District Co-operative Federation Society. In the year 1980, the State Governemnt took a Policy decision to establish Himachal Pradesh Civil Supply Corporation for the said purpose. As a result thereof, the work relating to procurement and distribution of essential items amongst 5 2026:HHC:23978 public was transferred to the Corporation and the staff engaged by District Co-operative Federation for undertaking public distribution work was rendered surplus. Many of the Co-operative Federations sustained loses and were placed under liquidation. Some of the employees of the said Societies also approached the learned Tribunal and directions were passed by the learned Tribunal to consider the case of such candidates for granting alternative jobs. These directions were passed by the learned Tribunal in light of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal No.5940 of 1992, titled Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Marketing Consumer Worker Union and others Versus Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Marketing Consumer and others. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by learned Tribunal, State of Himachal Pradesh approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, however, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the Special Leave Petition being time barred. It is further the stand of the Department that in compliance to the directions of learned Tribunal, seven employees, out of which four were the petitioners were appointed with the Department. After the adjudication of the said Original Application, many of such Original Applications were filed by the employees of the Co-operative Federation before the learned Tribunal, in which, similar directions were issued. The orders of the learned Tribunal were assailed before the High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petitions by setting aside the 6 2026:HHC:23978 orders passed by the learned Tribunal, but by observing that the State, on its own, can consider the Scheme for Rehabilitation of the employees of the Society. It is further the stand of the Department that in this backdrop, the prayer of the petitioners to allow protection of pay and count their past services rendered by them, with the analogy of absorption of the employees of other Societies, was not tenable. 5. It is also the stand of the State that the employees of the Co-operative Societies which were private business enterprises, who were subsequently recruited in Governemnt service, are not be entitled for protection of pay and counting of past services at par with the employees of Board, Corporation or Autonomous Bodies. On this count, the Department has prayed for rejection of the case of the petitioners. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings and documents appended therewith. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were the employees of a Co-operative Society. The petitioners have only appended one order of appointment with the respondent- Department with the petition and a perusal thereof demonstrates that they were appointed against the post of Peon-cum-Chowkidar with the respondent-Department and they were not absorbed. In fact, it was a fresh appointment for all intents and purposes and in 7 2026:HHC:23978 terms of the appointment letter, the appointment offered was on temporary basis with no holding-out was made to the petitioners that the petitioners were entitled for the counting of past service rendered by them in the Society for pension etc.. This Court again reiterates that it was not a case of absorption, but a case of fresh appointment. It is also a matter of record that prayer of the petitioners for grant of the benefit of past service was rejected by the Authorities Annexure R-1, dated 10.02.2003 and vide Annexure R-2 dated 03.06.2004. These orders were not assailed by the petitioners within some reasonable time as from the date of passing of the said orders and in fact they have not been assailed in the present petition also. 8. In light of the fact that the petitioners were employees of a Co-operative Society, upon which the State was not having any deep and pervasive control, obviously the Society under which the petitioners were serving earlier was not “other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India”. 9. Be that as it may, it is held that the services of the petitioners on being rendered surplus in the Society, were not absorbed with the respondent-Department. They were offered appointment afresh in the respondent-Corporation, in light of the observations made by the learned Tribunal in the petition preferred by some of the petitioners and others and obviously, the intent of the Department was just to ensure that the petitioners were not 8 2026:HHC:23978 rendered unemployed. No holding-out was made to them at any stage that they would be entitled to the benefit of counting of past service rendered by them with their erstwhile employer for pay protection or pensionary benefits. In fact, it is not even clear from the pleadings made in the writ petition, as to whether, the job of the petitioners was pensionable under the former employee or not. 10. Therefore, as there is nothing on record to suggest that any holding-out was made to the petitioners at the time when they were offered appointment in the respondent-Department that they would be given benefit of counting of the past service rendered by them, the petitioners cannot take advantage of the benevolent act of respondent-Department of offering them fresh appointment to safeguard their interest. 11. Besides this, the representations filed by the petitioners to the effect that they be given benefit of counting of their past service were rejected in terms of Annexures R-1 and R-2 and there was no challenge to the said rejection by the petitioners within some reasonable time. Consequently, these orders have attained finality. The similarity urged with other Boards and Corporations can also not come to the benefit of the petitioners because the character of the Government Board and Government Corporations is not akin to a Co-operative Society. 12. The petitioners having been recruited afresh in the respondent-Department and there being no connection between the 9 2026:HHC:23978 erstwhile employer and the subsequent employer, otherwise also, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioners can seek a mandamus calling upon the subsequent employer to bear the burden of past service rendered by them with some other employer, with whom the subsequent employer has got nothing to do. 13. Therefore, in light of above observations, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, which apparently is misconceived, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 22, 2026 (Rishi)