IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No.5457 of 2008(OA No.2536/98 Judgment reserved on 20.8.2009 Date of decision: 21.8.2009 Chaman Lal …….Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors ....….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. Kuldip Singh, Judge The Petitioner had filed Original Application being OA No.2536/98 on 20.12.1998 before Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal which was abolished and the cases of the erstwhile Tribunal were transferred to this court. On transfer of OA No.2536/98 to this Court the same has been registered as CWP(T) No.5457 of 2008. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner earlier joined the Department of Industries at Nahan in the year 1949 in Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan , later on management of the factory came under the Forest Department and ultimately in the year 1978 the petitioner was absorbed in the respondent No.3- Corporation. The petitioner retired as a foreman from respondent No.3 in the year 1998. It has been contended that petitioner had rendered qualified service for the grant of pension in the Forest Department before the petitioner was absorbed by respondent No.3, but respondent No.1 has not paid any pension to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to pension under the Pension rules for the service rendered by him in the Forest Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment dated 2.1.2008 of Division Bench of this court passed in CWP No.385 of 2002 State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Ishwar Dass. 3. The respondent No.1 has filed reply and has pleaded that petitioner was appointed on 28.11.1964 as regular Fireman. He was regularized on 1.4.1974 as skilled worker by respondent No.3. He retired on 30.6.1998 from the H.P. State forest corporation. H.P. Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan remained under Industry/forest Department upto 31.3.1974. It has been pleaded that prior to 1.4.1974 pension was not applicable and none of the factory worker was given this benefit. The petitioner was given benefit at the time of his retirement as admissible under Clause 32 of the Standing Orders. There was no 3 provision for grant of pension under the Standing Orders approved by the State Government. 4. The respondents No.3 and 4 have also filed reply and have submitted that prior to 1.4.1974 pension was not payable and none of the factory worker was given benefit of pension. The petitioner at the time of retirement was given benefit as admissible under Clause 32 of the Standing Orders, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. 5. In CWP No.385 of 2002 decided on 2.1.2008 after noticing Rule 14(3) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, the Division Bench has held that the petitioner in that case is entitled to pensionary benefits for the services rendered by him with respondent/State of Himachal Pradesh prior to his absorption in Forest Corporation. The petitioner has a right to get pension for the period he rendered the services before the State Government subject to the condition that he had rendered service for the minimum qualifying period. 6. The respondents have not disputed the fact that prior to serving in the Forest Corporation the petitioner had served in the Forest Department. Therefore, in light of judgment dated 2.1.2008, the petitioner is entitled to pro rata pension for the period he rendered service in State government prior to his absorption by respondent No.3-Corporation. 7. In view of above the petition is allowed with a direction that petitioner is entitled to pro rata pension for the period he rendered service in the State government subject to the condition that he had rendered minimum qualifying service for earning 4 pension. The arrears of pension shall be restricted to the period of three years prior to the date of filing of the Original Application. The arrears of the pension shall be calculated and paid to the petitioner by respondent No.1 within a period of three months from today, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on such arrears till payment. No costs. ( Kuldip Singh ) Judge. August 21, 2009 (sks)