IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1726 of 2011. Date of Decision: 18th November, 2011. _______________________________________________________ Shri Anant Ram ….Petitioner. Versus State of HP and others. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Surinder Singh, J. (Oral). The petitioner was appointed as driver by the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), Kullu. He had contributed to Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) and on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 31.1.2010. Retiral benefits also released to him, as per rules. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that he was entitled for the pensionary benefits like other employees taken on deputation from the State Government. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. In fact, the employees of DRDA are governed by the ‘Himachal Pradesh District 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Rural Development Agency Service Regulations, 2007’. Their services as defined under the said Regulations mean the service of HP District Rural Development Agency, which is different from the State service. DRDA has also powers to take the employees on secondment /deputation/foreign service, who shall continue to draw pay in their own pay scales as admissible to them on regular basis in their parent departments/organizations, as per the instructions issued by the Government from time to time. It is also open to DRDA to take employees deputation /secondment or on contract for a specific period or by reemployment of a person retired from the Central/State Government or an autonomous body or public sector undertaking etc. as provided in Chapter III of the said Regulations. Thus DRDA can resort to any source. 4. Para 35 of the Regulations aforesaid deals with the pension. It reads as under: “35. Pension. No pension shall be payable to the employees engaged by the DRDA. The DRDA shall, however, be required to pay leave salary and pension contributions to the Government/Central Government in respect of the employees taken on deputation as - 3 - per rules/ instructions as may be notified by the Government of Himachal Pradesh.” 5. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid Regulation, no pension is payable to the employees engaged by the DRDA. Since the petitioner has been engaged by the DRDA, he is not entitled for pension. As such, the relief claimed cannot be granted to him. The petition is accordingly dismissed. November 18, 2011. (Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.