IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 230 of 2008 Date of decision: 4.12.2008 State of H.P. and others ..Petitioners Versus Lal Singh ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.P.K.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate Per Surjit Singh, J.(Oral) By means of the present writ petition, filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh and others, judicial review of order, dated 9.1.2007 of H.P. Administrative Tribunal, Shimla (in short the Tribunal) passed in Original Applications No. 1973 of 2001 and 933 of 2003, whereby allowing the aforesaid two original applications, it has been ordered that respondent Lal Singh and one more person, named Amar Singh, are entitled to all pensionary benefits for the period of service rendered by them prior to their absorption in the H.P. State Forest 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 Corporation in the year 1975 and the respondents have been ordered to release such benefits. 2. We may first notice the relevant facts. Respondent Lal Singh, who filed O.A. No. 1973 of 2001, was employed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar by the Forest Department of Himachal Pradesh Government on 1.7.1959. In the year 1962, his services were regularized as Resin Watcher in the same department. He continued to work with the Forest Department as Resin Watcher till the year 1975, when his services were placed at the disposal of H.P. Forest Corporation, where he was absorbed as an employee of the said Corporation. He retired from the Forest Corporation, on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31st January, 1999. After retirement, he made a representation to the Government for grant of pro rata pension for the period he had rendered service in the Forest Department. His representation was rejected. Then he filed original application. One Amar Singh, who was situated similarly as the respondent, also filed an original application. Both the applications came to be decided by the learned tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 9.1.2007, whereby it was held that respondent and said Amar Singh were entitled to pro rata pension and accordingly, a direction was given to the writ petitioners to give them all pensionary benefits alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum within a period of three months. 3 3. The grounds, on which order of learned tribunal has been assailed, are that the respondent was not a permanent employee of the Forest Department when his services were transferred to H.P. Forest Corporation and hence, he was not entitled to pension. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General, representing the writ petitioners and the counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 5. Admittedly, the respondent had been in the service of Forest Department for more than 10 years, when his services were transferred to the Forest Corporation. Pension Rules, then in vogue, that is to say in the year 1975 when the services of the respondent were transferred to the Corporation, provided for payment of pro rata pension to the Government employees, who had completed 10 years or more than 10 years qualifying service. As per Rule 2(q), `qualifying service’ means service rendered, while on duty or otherwise, which shall be taken into account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under the rules. Rule 13 provides as to when the qualifying service commences. According to this rule, qualifying service commences from the date an employee takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity. First proviso to this rule says that officiating or temporary service to 4 become qualifying service should be followed by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post. 6. Plea raised on behalf of the writ petitioners in the present petition as also before the learned tribunal is, that respondent Lal Singh was appointed on temporary basis and his temporary service was not followed by substantive appointment in the same service or against the same post or in any other service or post. Similar contention was raised by the petitioners in several other matters pertaining to the employees of the Forest Department, who had been transferred to the Forest Corporation, both before the learned tribunal as also this court. One of those cases, in which contention was raised before the learned tribunal, was Leela Ram and others Vs. State of H.P. and others, O.A. No. 77 of 1987, decided on 24.3.1995. In that case learned tribunal held that there were instructions issued by the Government as early as in the year 1973 for conversion of at least 50% Class-IV temporary posts, which had been in existence for three years, into permanent posts in all the departments of the Government and that had those instructions been followed by the Forest Department, temporary post, against which the applicant in that case had been appointed, would have been converted into permanent post. It was observed that on account of the in-action on the part of the department in the matter of getting 50% of the temporary posts converted into permanent ones, the applicant could not be 5 denied or deprived of the benefit of pension under CCS Pension Rules. This view of the learned tribunal in Leela Ram’s case (supra) has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. Vs. Ruldu Ram and others, CWP No. 459 of 2002, decided on 2.1.2008. In view of the above stated position, we are of the considered view that the order passed by the learned tribunal calls for no interference. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. The judgment of the learned tribunal suggests that one more original application was disposed of by the very judgment, by which the case of respondent Lal Singh had been decided. Learned Additional Advocate General says that another writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 232 of 2008 has been filed challenging this very judgment, so far as it renders the benefit to Amar Singh, who filed separate original application. Registry is ordered to list the other writ petition, i.e. CWP No. 232 of 2008 on 5.12.2008. In case the said CWP is linked with other matters, those other matters be also listed. ( R. B. Misra ), J. December 4, 2008(K) ( Surjit Singh ), J.