IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPT No.1795 of 2008 Decided on: August 12, 2011 Shakuntla Devi ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Petitioner served Indian Army as a Staff Nurse from 1967 to 1979. On retirement, she was paid a sum of `11,485/- , by way of gratuity. No pension was sanctioned. In the year 1981, she was employed as a Nurse by the State of H.P. Soon after her employment by the State of H.P., she made a request to her Head of the Department, i.e. Director, Health Services, respondent No.2 herein, vide Annexure A-2, for treating her Army service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension, in accordance with Rule 19 of CCS (Pension) Rules. In fact, Annexure A-2 is an option exercised by the petitioner, in accordance with the provision of the aforesaid Rule. Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É 2. Vide letter, copy Annexure A-4, petitioner was directed by the Chief Medical Officer, under whom she was working, to refund the amount of gratuity of `11485/- to the Defence Service Estimates, by means of a cheque or demand draft, in favour of CDA, Coy, Pune-I. Petitioner complied with this direction of the Chief Medical Officer and refunded the amount, in question, vide Annexure A-5, after a month of the receipt of letter, copy Annexure A-4. 3. Petitioner retired from the service of State of H.P., on attaining the age of superannuation, on 30.9.2001. She was granted pension, but her Army service was not taken into account as qualifying service, while calculating the pension. She filed an Original Application before the then H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. That Original Application was ordered to be treated as representation and a direction was issued to the Director, Health services, Himachal Pradesh, i.e. respondent No.2, to decide that representation by a speaking order. Respondent No.2 then passed the impugned order, copy Annexure A-3 dated 1.1.2008, by which the representation of the petitioner has been conditionally accepted, the condition being that the petitioner deposits, with the State Government, a sum of `11485/-, equivalent to the amount of gratuity, received by her from defence department, with interest. Petitioner is now aggrieved by this condition. É3É 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents, in which it is stated that the petitioner was directed to refund the amount of gratuity to the State Government and not to the defence authorities and she having not refunded the money to the State Government, her military service had not been counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. 5. Petitioner cannot be blamed for refunding the gratuity amount to the defence authorities, vide Annexure A-5 dated 6.6.1989. She refunded the amount of gratuity to the defence authorities, because of her having been directed to do so by the Chief Medical Officer, vide Annexure A-4. As a matter of fact, Annexure A-4, is a copy of letter, written by Director, Health Services, i.e. respondent No.2 herein, to the Chief Medical Officer, who was required by the aforesaid letter to ask the petitioner to deposit the amount of gratuity, i.e. `11485/- with the defence authorities and the Chief Medical Officer then endorsed this letter, vide endorsement dated 5.5.1989, to the petitioner. 6. Now, when the petitioner had been directed by respondent No.2 himself to deposit the amount of gratuity with the defence authorities and not with the State Government, with which it was required to be deposited as is being alleged now, petitioner cannot be blamed for the same. She complied with the direction of respondent No.2, as contained in letter, copy Annexure A-4 and deposited the É4É amount of gratuity with the defence authorities, in the year 1989. 7. In view of the above stated position, present petition is allowed, condition, contained in Annexure A-3, is quashed and the respondents are directed to re-submit the pension case of the petitioner to the Accountant General, by adding to her service rendered with the State of H.P, the period of military service as qualifying service. The direction be complied with, within a period of two months. Petition stands disposed of. August 12, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.