IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 219 of 2026 Date of decision: 21.04.2026. Uploaded on: 28.04.2026 State of H.P. & another ...Appellants. Versus Roshan Lal & another ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2025, passed in CWPOA No. 5517 of 2019, filed by respondent No. 1, whereby the said respondent has been held entitled to pensionary benefits, in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 w.e.f. the date of retirement by taking into account the qualifying service of the said respondent from 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- the date the respondent had joined the Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Ltd., as a regular employee along with all consequential benefits. 2. Respondent No. 1 in the case at hand had worked as daily wage Driller in the Mining Project in Bilaspur since 1972. The aforesaid engagement of the said respondent was in the Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Limited. The services of the respondent No. 1 were regularized on 02.01.1998, Annexure P-1 (page 106 of the paper book). 3. Upon rationalization/structuring of Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Limited, the employees of the Mining Project at Bilaspur, wherein respondent No. 1 was working was declared surplus and hence deployed on secondment basis in terms of office order dated 29.07.2002, Annexure P-2, (page 108 of the paper book). The deployment on secondment was in the Directorate of Industries & IT, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla- 1. On secondment Respondent No. 1 had been deployed as a Chowkidar in the Directorate of Industries & IT. -3- 4. Vide office order dated 11.06.2004, Annexure P-4 (page 104 of the paper book), on the recommendations of the Departmental Absorption Committee, the services of the respondent No. 1 were absorbed. The absorption was by way of transfer as specifically stated in condition no 2 of the absorption office order. For the purpose of the present appeal, the relevant term and condition, whereupon the services of the said respondent had been absorbed, as per Clause-2 and Clause-3, are being reproduced herein below:- “2. The absorption by way of transfer is purely on temporary basis. He will be on probation for a period of 2 years from the date of joining subject to further extension of one year in special circumstances. Failure to complete the prescribed probation to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority will render him liable for discharge from service/reversion to his parent office if he holds a lien against a permanent post there. 3. The benefit of past services for the purpose of pay protection and pension etc. shall be granted in the case if he will deposit the employer share into Consolidated Fund of the State and employee share into General Provident Fund without waiting for one year service condition in accordance with Rule 38 of the CPF Rules.” 5. In pursuance to the afore-stated condition of absorption, respondent No. 1 on 14.06.2025, deposited the -4- employer share in the Consolidated Fund of the State and the employee share in the General Provident Fund. The same is evident from the copies of the challans placed at pages 123/124/125 of the paper book by virtue of which deposit had been made in the Treasury. 6. After having successfully, completed eleven years and three months as a regular employee and twenty six years as daily wager, respondent No. 1 retired on 31.03.2009. However, vide letter dated 12.03.2009 (Page 129 of the paper book), benefits of pension to which respondent No. 1 was entitled to in terms of condition No.3, reproduced (supra) contained in the office order pertaining to the absorption of the said respondent dated 11.06.2004, pension was denied. 7. By way of CWP No. 4046 of 2011, letter dated 12.03.2009, whereby pension had been denied to respondent No. 1 was assailed by the said respondent. The said petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 20.07.2012. By virtue of the said judgment, the authorities were directed to consider the case of -5- respondent No. 1 in light of Clause-3 of the absorption order dated 11.06.2024. 8. An appeal by way of LPA was preferred against the judgment dated 20.07.2012, passed in CWP No. 4046 of 2011. During the pendency of the appeal, the Additional Chief Secretary, vide office order dated 05.11.2012 once again rejected the case of the respondent. It was the said rejection dated 05.11.2012, which was challenged by the respondent by way of CWPOA No. 5517 of 2019, wherein the impugned judgment dated 17.09.2025 has been passed. 9. In response filed before the learned Single Judge, the primary stand taken by the appellants was that in terms of H.P. Civil Services Contributory Scheme, 2003, brought into effect vide notification dated 17.08.2006 and instructions issued by the Finance Department (Pension), office Memorandum dated 13.09.2006, the present respondent was disentitled to receive pension. The aforesaid rules notified vide notification dated 17.08.2006 and the office Memorandum dated 13.09.2006, was stated to have retrospective operation. -6- 10. In the aforesaid background, the learned Single Judge has primarily allowed the petition filed by respondent No. 1 on the express terms and conditions of the absorption office order (specifically condition No. 3 reproduced supra), and that the same could not have been mitigated by applying notification dated 17.08.2006, instructions issued vide Memorandum dated 13.09.2006. 11. Heard counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 12. The office Memorandum dated 13.09.2006 has been placed on record at page 166 of the paper book. A perusal of the same reflects that the same pertains to counting of past service on submission of technical resignation on or after 15.05.2003 by the employees, governed by the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The case of the respondent No. 1, as is evident from the absorption order dated 11.06.2004 in the Department of Industries is one of absorption by way of transfer in terms of condition No. 2 contained in the absorption order and not by way of submission of technical resignation, as is contemplated in office Memorandum dated 13.09.2006. -7- 13. In the case at hand, respondent No. 1 had been absorbed on certain specific terms and conditions. The relevant Clause-3 stands reproduced (supra). In pursuance to the aforesaid clause requisite necessary deposit had been made by the said respondent. In terms of Clause-3 contained in the office order dated 11.06.2004 whereby the respondent No. 1 was absorbed the condition prescribed in Rule 38 of the CPF Rules has also been dispensed with. In this respect, reference can be made to Rule 38 of the CPF Rules, which reads as under:- “38. Procedure on transfer to pensionable service- (1) If a subscriber is permanently transferred to pensionable service under the President, he shall, at his option, be entitled- (a) to continue to subscribe to the Fund, in which case he shall not be entitled to any pension; or (b) to earn pension in respect of such pensionable service, in which case, with effect from the date of his permanent transfer- (i) he shall cease to subscribe to the Fund; (ii) the amount of contributions by government with interest thereon standing to his credit in the Fund shall be repaid to Government. (iii) The amount of subscriptions together with interest thereon standing to his credit in the Fund shall be transferred to his credit in the General Provident Fund, to which thereafter -8- he shall subscribe in accordance with the rules of that fund; and (iv) He shall thereupon be entitled to count towards pension, service rendered prior to the date of permanent transfer, to the extent permissible under the relevant Pension Rules. (2) A subscriber shall communicate his option under sub-rule (1) by a letter to the Accounts Officer within three months of the date of the order transferring him permanently to pensionable service; and if no communication is received in the Office of the Accounts Officer within that period, the subscriber shall be deemed to have exercised his option in the manner referred to in Clause (b) of that sub-rule”. 14. As per rule 38 whenever a subscriber to the fund is permanently transferred to a pensionable service the subscriber is required to communicate his option of continuing in the fund or to earn pension in respect of such pensionable service. If no communication is received the subscriber shall be deemed to have exercised his option to earn pension in respect of such pensionable service. The respondent in the case at hand was a subscriber to the fund while working with the Himachal Pradesh General Industries Corporation Limited. On absorption by way of transfer in terms of condition no. 2 -9- contained in the absorption order the respondent became a part of a pensionable service in the industries department. In terms of Rule 38 (1) (b) even if no option was exercised by the respondent even than he shall be deemed to have exercised his option to earn pension in respect of such pensionable service. 15. The Government of H.P. had modified the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in its application to the State of H.P. The same had been made in applicable to all appointments made in the State of H.P. on or after 15.05.2003. Vide notification dated 17.08.2006, the H.P. Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006 was notified. In terms of the notification the same was to come into effect from 15.05.2003. Despite being aware of the same Clause No. 3 was incorporated in the absorption order dated 11.04.2004. Ignorance of law cannot be pleaded by the appellants in this respect. Besides based on the terms contained in the absorption order in the case at hand the respondent No. 1 had exercised an option to be absorbed. In pursuance thereto the respondent had deposited the -10- employer share in the Consolidated Fund of the State and the employee share in the General Provident Fund. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G. S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge 21st April, 2026 (kck)