Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA. CWP No. : 2938 of 2009 Date of Decision : 26.12. 2011 Naesh Kumar Puri, S/o late Sh. Chandi Dass Puri, R/o Mohalla Surara, District and P.O. Chamba, H.P. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Food & Supply), Shimla, H.P. 2. Director, Food & Health Department, Shimla, H.P. 3. District Controller, Food & Supplies, Chamba, H.P. ….. Respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to work and act in accordance with law. __________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner : Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J. (Oral): By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus against the respondents to consider the previous period of his employment with the Municipal - 2 - Corporation, Chamba w.e.f. 1.12.1965 to 23.4.1986 for pensionary benefits. 2. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that he joined as ‘Octroi Clerk’ in December, 1965 with the respondent- Corporation,. In the year 1975, he was promoted as ‘Octroi Inspector’ but later this post was abolished. On 24.4.1986, he was absorbed in the State Department of Food and Civil Supply. On 30.6.2006, he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. According to petitioner, the previous job held by him with the Municipal Corporation was pensionable. He had been contributing CPF installments. On having been absorbed in the respondent-department he deposited the employer share of Municipal Corporation with interest in the year 1991 and he was granted GPF account number. The petitioner rendered 20 years 2 months and 27 days service in the respondent-department. He represented to the respondent-department to include his service rendered in the Municipal Corporation for retiral benefits. The respondent took up this matter with the Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla but with some queries it was referred to the Finance (Pension) Department. As per their opinion, the petitioner was required to exercise option for counting his past service for pensionary benefits combined with the respondent- department within one year from the date of his absorption in terms of Para 3(B) (ii) of Government of India O.M. No.28-10/84- Pension Unit, dated 29.8.1984 adopted by the State Government - 3 - in the year 1996. Since the petitioner did not exercise option within the stipulated period, as such, his request for depositing the employer share in Pension Head of Account and counting of past service for pensionary benefits was not acceded to at this belated stage. 4. In view of above, this Court vide order dated 17th November, 2011 directed the respondents to file supplementary affidavit as to whether the letter qua option was circulated to the field formation where the petitioner was posted at the relevant time. In their affidavit dated 30th November, 2011, the respondent-department stated that this information was not available with them. The respondents also stated that the service-book of the petitioner was submitted to the Accountant General of Himachal Pradesh for revision of pension which has not been received back so far. 5. Rule 14 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (Annexure S-3) which are in vogue since the year 1973 says that where the leave, pension and other cognate matters are not specifically mentioned in these rules, the members of the service shall be governed by the Rules applicable to the employees of Himachal Pradesh from time to time, unless one has already exercised option otherwise. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner was absorbed by the respondents as Sub Inspector in the respondent-department. He did not opt out from the applicability of terms and conditions of - 4 - absorption as issued by the Government of India and adopted by the State Government. Instructions Annexure S-4 dated 5th July, 1996 were made applicable to all the employees of the State Government seeking absorption in State Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies and Vice-versa with effect from the date of issue thereof. It also contains the clarification regarding counting of the numbers of previous service. 7. Therefore, in view of the aforestated position, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioner for including the period w.e.f. 1.12.1965 to 24.4.1986 rendered by him in Municipal Committee, Chamba for the pensionary benefits in conformity with the office memorandum Annexure S-4 dated 5th July, 1996 (colly) and for that the non- exercise of his option, as alleged by the respondents shall not come in his way. It is further directed that the case of the petitioner shall be decided by respondent No.2 within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment. 8. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. 26th December, 2011. (Surinder Singh), k.sharma. Judge.