IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10211 of 2008 Date of Decision : 21.6.2011 Sansar Chand ….. Petitioner Versus State of H.P.& Ors. ……… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate For respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. For respondent No.3 : Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) That the respondents may be directed to grant final pension to applicant after taking into account of full period of his service from 17-5-1980 to 31-1-2002, i.e. 21 years, 8 months and 15 days, and to pay the arrears resulting therefrom alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date due till the actual date of payment thereof. b) That the respondents may be further directed to grant and release the amount of leave encashment for the unexpired portion of earned leave standing at the credit of the applicant along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date due till the actual date of payment thereof.” 2. Facts are few, simple and not in dispute. On 17th May, 1980, petitioner joined as a Sanitary Inspector with the Municipal Council, 2 Dharamshala and continued to serve as such till his retirement on 31st January, 2002. 3. Payment towards the unexpired earned leave stands disbursed during the pendency of the petition. A sum of Rs.1,15,460/- stands disbursed vide Cheque dated 9.7.2003 and consequently petition qua prayer clause (b) has become infructuous. 4. With regard to prayer clause (a), it stands explained by respondents No.2 & 3 that petitioner’s service conditions are governed by the Himachal Pradesh Municipality Employees (Pension, Gratuity and G.P.F.) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). Rule 6(I) specifically provides that qualifying service for determination of pension and gratuity of a municipal employee is to be considered from the date on which contribution towards C.P.F. is made by the employee. There is no dispute that in the instant case even though petitioner joined service on 17.5.1980 but started paying contribution only w.e.f. 1.2.1984, which date, undisputedly has been considered while disbursing amounts due, admissible and payable to the petitioner, in accordance with the Rules. Receipt of such payment also cannot be disputed. However according to the petitioner, instead of 18 years, service of 21 years, 8 months and 15 days is required to be taken into account as a qualifying service for determining his pension. 5. In support of his claim, our attention has been invited to the letter dated 19.2.1986 (Annexure A/8) issued by the Joint Secretary (RD) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, conveying a decision that service rendered by the employees under the Panchayat Samities, prior to their take over by the Rural Development Department shall be counted towards pension and 3 gratuity irrespective of the fact whether they were subscribing towards C.P.F. or not. 6. In this background, there shall be a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to look into the petitioner’s grievances in the light of Annexure A/8 and take a decision thereupon. It shall be open for the petitioner to place such other material as may be required in support of his claim. The authority(ies), after adverting to the same, shall take a decision positively within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner. 7. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 21, 2011 (rana)