2026:HHC:11888 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 12203 of 2025 Decided on: 17.04.2026 Shri Mordhawaj …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. : Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to allow pension in favour of the petitioner by taking into consideration his total qualifying service from 08.10.1990 to 30.06.2017 in terms of letter dated 06.05.2011 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-3) with all consequential benefits including g arrear of pension alongwith interest @ 9% per annum and justice be done; 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:11888 ii. To grant to the petitioner such other consequential reliefs, which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in facts and circumstances of the matter;” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he served the Indian Army and after being discharged from said service, he was appointed as a Forest Guard in the capacity of an Ex-servicemen in the year 2005 after his name was sponsored by the Sainik Welfare Board, Hamirpur, for the said post. He superannuated on 30.06.2017. The petitioner has been denied pension on the ground that he has not completed 10 years of regular service. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in light of the fact that the petitioner has served the Armed Forces from 08.10.1990 to 06.05.2011 and that he was re-appointed on his name being sponsored by the Director Sainik Welfare, Hamirpur, the act of the respondents of not counting the active Military service to determine the eligibility of the petitioner to receive the pension is bad in law. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, by referring to the reply filed by the State, submitted that after the appointment of the petitioner as a Forest Guard, he superannuated from the post of Deputy Ranger on 30.06.2017, after rendering 9 3 2026:HHC:11888 years, 8 months and 24 days of regular service. He further submitted that as the petitioner had not put in minimum service, as is required for the receipt of pension, he has rightly been denied the pension. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that the petitioner is receiving pension from the Ministry/Establishment of Defence for the service rendered by him with the Armed Forces and therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that military service rendered by him be counted to make him eligible for the receipt of pension. Learned Additional Advocate General also referred to Rule 19 (1)(a) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and submitted that a Government servant, who is re-employed in a civil service or post before attaining the age of superannuation and who, before such re-employment, had rendered military service, may on his confirmation in a civil service or post, opt either to continue to draw the military pension or retain gratuity received on discharge from military service, in which case his former military services shall not count as qualifying service, or cease to draw his pension and refund the pension already drawn and the value received for the commutation or a part of military pension and the amount of retirement gratuity including service gratuity, if any and count previous military service as qualifying 4 2026:HHC:11888 service, in which case the service shall be so allowed to be counted as per Rules. He submitted that in the present case as the petitioner continued to draw the military pension after his retirement and he did not refund the pension and other benefits received, he is not entitled for the receipt of pension by counting the military service. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith and the provisions of law. 6. It is not in dispute that as the from the date of his appointment against the civil post, the petitioner superannuated after putting in 9 years, eight months and 24 days service. The prayer of the petitioner primarily is that the service rendered by him with the Armed Forces w.e.f. 08.10.1990 to 06.05.2011 should also be counted for the purpose of determination of his eligibility for the receipt of pension. This Court is of the considered view that said relief cannot be granted to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that after the discharge of the petitioner from the Armed Forces, he received all the retiral benefits and is also continuing to receive the pension from the military establishment, as has been mentioned in the reply by the respondents. These facts are not in dispute. That being so, the petitioner cannot claim that military service rendered 5 2026:HHC:11888 by him should be counted for the purpose of determining his eligibility for the receipt of pension as the prayer of the petitioner is hit by Rule 19 of the CCS Pension Rules 1972. Had the petitioner forfeited his pension after joining the civil post and complied with other provisions of Rule 19 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, then the things would have been different. But herein as the petitioner continues to draw the military pension and has also retained the gratuity etc. therefore, service rendered by him with Armed Forces cannot be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension in light of the provisions of Rule 19 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Even in terms of Rule 49 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, as the petitioner has not completed 9 years and 9 months service after joining the civil post on regular basis, the benefit of Rule 49(2) and 49(3) of the CCS Pension Rules 1972 can also be not conferred upon him. Accordingly, in light of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 17, 2026 (narender)