It also cannot be disputed that the amendment
in the rules as made vide notification dated 12.6.2018 was
to come into force from the date of its publication in the
Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh. {Para 7}
8. The question thus arises whether the petitioner
who had retired on 31.8.2017 would be entitled to the
benefit of notification dated 12.6.2018?
9. In my considered view the question deserves to
be answered in affirmative for the reason that pension is
earned by a government servant in lieu of the services
rendered by him. It is the security for which he serves the
public besides what he earns by way of monthly
emoluments during service. The rules prescribing the
norms for disbursement of the amount of pension have to
be considered in that perspective. Since it is a beneficial
provision for the government servant, therefore, any
narrow construction will render the purpose of granting the
same otiose.
10. Since, the notification dated 12.6.2018 was for
the benefit of an entire class i.e. class III and IV employees
of the State Government it could not be construed to
benefit only those who would retire after the issuance of
the notification for such a classification will clearly be
discriminatory. The pension is a recurring benefit to a
retired government servant, therefore, the notification
dated 12.6.2018 promulgating a beneficial rule will also
enure for benefit of petitioner, who still was entitled to
pension on the date of such promulgation.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 7658 of 2020
Veena Devi Vs State of H.P. &others
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Decided on : 28.8.2023.
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed
for the following substantive relief:-
“That the respondents may be ordered to fix the pension
of the applicant as per Rule 49 of the Pension Rules, 1972
and as per the notification issued in this behalf and also
as per the notification issued in the year 2009 and
revived in the year 2018 and the benefits incidental
thereof may also be paid to the applicant.”
2. After serving the State Government for more
than 29 years petitioner opted for pre-mature retirement
and stood retired w.e.f. 31.8.2017. The last post held by
petitioner was of Superintendent Grade-II in the office of
SDM, Nagrota-Bagwan, District Hamirpur, H.P. The
pension of the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 9658/- per
month, whereas the petitioner claimed it at Rs. 10990/-
per month i.e. 50% of the basic pay last drawn by her at
Rs. 21980/-.
3. The respondents justify the fixation of the
pension of the petitioner at Rs. 9658/- per month by
calculating the period of service rendered by the petitioner
in proportion to the period of qualifying service of 33 years.
It is alleged that at the time of retirement of petitioner, the
notification dated 11.11.2014, issued by the Government
of Himachal Pradesh was in vogue, according to which, the
payable amount of pension for those retiring after
completion of qualifying service of ten years but before
completing qualifying service of 33 would be in proportion
as stated above.
4. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is
that vide Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2009, issued by
the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the entitlement to
the pension after completion of minimum qualifying service
of 20 years was 50% of the emoluments. This position was
temporarily altered vide notification dated 11.11.2014 and
was again restored vide notification dated 12.6.2018,
whereby again in the case of Class-III and Class-IV
employees, the payable pension after completion of
qualifying service of 20 years was 50% of the emoluments.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and have also gone through the record carefully.
6. The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner retired
on 31.8.2017 and admittedly had rendered more than 20
years of service on such date. Prior to 11.11.2014, the
Government servant in Himachal Pradesh was made
entitled to 50% of the emoluments as pension in case he
had rendered more than 20 years of service. The rate was
made proportionate to 33 years of qualifying service
between the period 11.11.2014 to 12.6.2018, and then the
rate was again restored to 50% of the emoluments for
Class-III and Class-IV employees.
7. It also cannot be disputed that the amendment
in the rules as made vide notification dated 12.6.2018 was
to come into force from the date of its publication in the
Rajpatra of Himachal Pradesh.
8. The question thus arises whether the petitioner
who had retired on 31.8.2017 would be entitled to the
benefit of notification dated 12.6.2018?
9. In my considered view the question deserves to
be answered in affirmative for the reason that pension is
earned by a government servant in lieu of the services
rendered by him. It is the security for which he serves the
public besides what he earns by way of monthly
emoluments during service. The rules prescribing the
norms for disbursement of the amount of pension have to
be considered in that perspective. Since it is a beneficial
provision for the government servant, therefore, any
narrow construction will render the purpose of granting the
same otiose.
10. Since, the notification dated 12.6.2018 was for
the benefit of an entire class i.e. class III and IV employees
of the State Government it could not be construed to
benefit only those who would retire after the issuance of
the notification for such a classification will clearly be
discriminatory. The pension is a recurring benefit to a
retired government servant, therefore, the notification
dated 12.6.2018 promulgating a beneficial rule will also
enure for benefit of petitioner, who still was entitled to
pension on the date of such promulgation.
11. In result, the petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to re-fix the pension of the
petitioner in accordance with the notification dated
12.6.2018 w.e.f. the date on which said notification has
come into force. Needful, including payment of arrears to
petitioner, be done within eight weeks from the date of
passing of this judgment.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of so also the
pending application(s), if any.
(Satyen Vaidya)
28th August, 2023 Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment