IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 3089 of 2008. Decided on 22.3.2011 Dina Nath ..…Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …. Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii) : “ (i) That Annexure : A/1 be quashed and set-aside. The respondents may kindly be directed to grant all the pensionary benefits to the applicant from 1.9.1977 and not from 1.9.1984. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to release all the arrears qua pensionary benefits along with interest @ 18 % per annum in favour of the applicant.” 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, the following stand has been taken vide paras 1 to 3 of the preliminary submissions and 6 (vi) to (viii) on merits : 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 “ 1. That with regard to the grounds taken up by the applicant for seeking present relief, it is submitted that admittedly services of the applicant were taken over by the Govt. of H.P w.e.f. 1.6.1984 and prior to w.e.f. 16.8.1976 to 31.5.1984 the applicant remained as Panchayat Samiti’s worker as Panchayat Secretary. The applicant has worked from the period w.e.f. 1.6.1984 to 30.4.2007 in the respondent department and upon superannuation he retired as Panchayat Secretary on 30.4.2007. The applicant upon superannuation stood granted each and every admissible dues to which he was found entitled after taking into account the period worked in Rural Dev. Department. As such the present O.A is not maintainable as no cause of action has accrued to the applicant. 2. That it is submitted that as per the provision of Section 19 of H.P. Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 the Panchayat Samiti is an autonomous body. The said body can sue or be sued in its own name. Prior to this, corresponding provision also existed in the repealed Act. The services of the applicant were taken over by the respondent department/state only w.e.f. 1.6.1984 prior to which he was an employee of an autonomous body. The said employer is also a necessary party but the applicant has not impleaded the same as party. Therefore, the present O.A is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 3. That the services of the applicant were taken over by the respondent 3 department/state w.e.f. 1.6.1984. The cause of action has accrued to the applicant on 1.6.1984 but the applicant has preferred the present O.A on or after 21.10.2007. Therefore, as per the provision of Section 21 of the H.P. Tribunal Act, 1996 the present O.A deserves to be dismissed being time barred and not preferred within one year of the cause of action. 6 (vi) That in reply to the contents of these sub-paras it is denied that the applicant was appointed on 16.8.1976 with respondent No.4 and joined respondents department as Secretary Panchayat. It is submitted that prior to 1.6.1984 applicant remained an employee of replying respondents department. However, the services of the applicant was taken over by the replying respondents along with similar situated category w.e.f. 1.6.1984 onwards and prior to that applicant was an employee of Panchayat Samiti and his services were that of semi-government. It is further submitted that the applicant has not deposited CPF w.e.f. 1.9.1977 as such the pensionary benefits are payable to the applicant w.e.f. 1.6.1984 which stands paid to him. In view of the above facts and circumstances the applicant has no cause of action to prefer the present OA and same deserves to be dismissed. (vii) That in reply to the contents of this sub-para are it is submitted that the applicant is entitled for pensionary benefits w.e.f. 1.6.1984 because the applicant has not deposited CPF w.e.f. 4 1.9.1977 to 31.5.1984. It is pertinent to mention here that the responsibility to deduct the CPF was of the applicant’s earlier employer i.e. Panchayat Samiti and not that of replying respondents. (viii) That the contents of this sub-para are admitted being matter of record. However, it is submitted that permission to deposit CPF w.e.f. 1.9.1977 to 31.5.1984 at such belated stage could not be accorded/granted to the applicant, therefore, the permission has been rightly rejected.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the very outset that the case of the petitioner is covered under order dated May 8, 2002 of the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (since abolished) in OA (D) No.283 of 1996, Mr. Basheshar Lal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, as upheld by this Court, vide Division Bench judgment dated July 31, 2008 of this Court in CWP No.1802 of 2002, State of Himachal Pradesh & others vs. Mr. Basheshar Lal. 4. In view of the above, if on facts, the case of the petitioner is covered under the order/judgment referred to hereinabove and he is similarly situate, he shall also be treated similarly without any discrimination and the benefit of the said order/judgment shall be extended to him within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 5 4. The petition stands disposed of, so also pending CMP (s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 22nd March, 2011. cs