IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 6798 of 2008. Reserved on: 22.03.2010. Decided on: 6.04.2010. _______________________________________________________ Amar Dass. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rajiv Sharma, J.: The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the office of respondent No.3-Corporation on 10.5.1989. He had to retire on 31.1.1999. However, by taking a compassionate view, petitioner was permitted to continue up to 31st March, 1999 as per Annexure A-3, dated 30.3.1999. This exercise was undertaken by the respondent to permit the petitioner to complete ten years qualifying service. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that since his client had completed ten years 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - qualifying service, he was entitled to pension. He has further argued that Annexure A-5, dated 1.7.2000 is arbitrary. Mr. Rajinder Dogra and Mr. Shrawan Dogra, appearing on behalf of the respondents have vehemently argued that the petitioner is not eligible for pension as per Himachal Pradesh Municipality Employees (Pension, Gratuity and General Provident Fund) Rules, 2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings carefully. It is true that on the basis of Annexure A-3, dated 30.3.1999 petitioner has been permitted to superannuate on 31st March, 1999. In other words, he has completed ten years qualifying service. Pension to the Municipal employees is regulated under the Himachal Pradesh Municipality Employees (Pension, Gratuity and General Provident Fund) Rules, 2000(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). It is clear from the language employed in proviso to Sub- Rule (1) of Rule 6 that the employees who were in regular employment of Municipality on 1.4.1992, their qualifying service for Pension and Gratuity was to be taken into consideration from the date they started contributing towards Contributory Provident Fund. The petitioner has started contributing towards provident fund with effect from November, 1997. The qualifying service of the petitioner as per this proviso is to be counted from the date he had started contributing towards Contributory Provident Fund, i.e. November, 1997. He has deposited the Contributory Provident Fund only for one year and five months. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to pension. - 3 - Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. April 6, 2010. (sck).