IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5343 of 2008 Decided on : 09.11.2010 P.C. Aggarwal ..…Petitioner. Versus The Secretary (Co-Operation) and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. None for the remaining respondents. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7 (i) to (iii):- “(i) To direct the Respondent No.3 to allow the R.I.P. (i.e D.A., I.R. etc.) on the basis of Pension of the applicant w.e.f. the date of his final retirement from the respondent Corporation i.e. 1.8.1996, as is being allowed n case of Pensioners who get 1/3rd pension commuted. The A.G., Himachal Pradesh may please be advised accordingly by Respondent No.3 and directed to make payment of arrears on this account within two months. (i) To direct the Respondent No.2 to allow step- up increment to the applicant in the scale attached to the post of Dy.Registrar, Co-operative Societies after completion of 8 years service in the scale, i.e. w.e.f. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.` 2 1.9.1986 as per H.P. Govt. rules and refix the basic pay accordingly and thereafter work out the pension admissible on refixed basic pay. The Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh may please be advised accordingly by Respondent No.3 and arrears on this account may please be ordered to be paid. (iii) To direct the Respondent No.3 to make payment in respect of pending medical re- imbursement bills. Further direction may please also be issued to the Respondent No.3 to make timely payment of medical re-imbursement bills that the applicant may submit in future.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2, the following averments have been set up vide paras 3 and 6(6) to 6(9):- “(3) In reply to this para it may be stated that the applicant had not intentionally quoted in the letter dated 13-12-1990 whereby his proficiency increment case was rejected by the State Govt. A true copy of this letter is annexed at Annexure R-I to this reply. Hence the case of the applicant badly suffers from delay and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is however submitted that the applicant was promoted as Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies in the pay scale of Rs. 940- 1850 on 14-09-1978,before completion of 8 years service in the said grade he was promoted as General Manager, H.P..Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation on 26- 10-1983 in the pay scale of Rs. 1775-2100.The relevant extract of instructions contained in the Finance Department to the Govt. of H.P. letter no. Fin(c)B(7)6/88, dated 14-06-1989 is reproduced below for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal:- 3 “An employee will be eligible to proficiency increment(s) only if he has not gained any enhancement in his basic pay, except by way of annual increment and fixation of pay as a result of revision of pay scales from time to time during preceding eight years for first prop-increment and 18 years for second prop-increment as on date from which prop .increment is given.” There was increase in the basic pay of the applicant due to promotion as such he is not entitled to prop- increment. The case of the applicant was considered and rejected by the Respondent No.1 vide letter No. dated 13.12.90. A copy of which has already been placed at annexure R-I to this reply. 6(6) to 6(9) In reply to these pars, it is submitted that the case with regard to restoration of one third of commuted portion of pension in respect of the applicant was taken up by the Respondent No.2 with the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A&E) H.P. Shimla. The said office vice his letter dated 15- 10-97 a copy of which is placed at (Annexure R-2) to this reply intimated the replying respondent that the commuted portion would be restored from 16.08.2008 i.e. date on which the applicant would be completing 70 years of age as his date of birth is 16.08.1938. So far as judgment of the Hon’ble H.P. Administrative Tribunal is concerned, the same s applicable qua the petitioners only. Moreover, the relief in this regard has been sought for by the applicant from the Respondent No.3.” 3. Respondent No.3 has averred as under vide para 3 of the reply:- 4 “3 That the contents of para 3 of Original Application are totally wrong hence emphatically denied. It is submitted that so far step up benefit if at all payable is to be given by previous employer and not by the present respondent. The pension is to be released by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Shimla to the retirees of this Corporation i.e retired employees of replying respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant had also preferred another Original Application with regard to Medical Reimbursement as such the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed on this score. Moreover it is also submitted that there is no provision of medical bills to the retired employees of the Corporation as such the same is not payable to the applicant. For the perusal of this Hon’ble Court the Regulation is annexed herewith as Annexure R- 3/1.” 4. Respondent No.5 has taken the following stand vide paras 3 and 6(10) of the reply:- “3 In reply to para it is submitted that the Health Department is directly involved in respect of the Medical Reimbursement claim of the applicant being advisory department as per Medical Attendance Rules. As per instructions issued by the reply respondent vide O.M. No. HFW-B(F)12-9/79-loose dated 8.11.1994, if any Govt. employee who before attaining the age of superannuation opted to serve in in the Corporations/Boards and Autonomous bodes and later absorbed in that Corporations/Board and Autonomous and after attaining the age of superannuation retired from that bodies, ceased to be the medical facilities from the H.P. Government and they will in future entitled to get the medical facilities from that bodies from here they retired on 5 superannuation. In view of this, the applicant is entitled to obtained the medical facilities from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Development Corporation where from where he had retired. Rest of the contents do not pertains to the replying respondent 6(10) In reply to para it is submitted that so far as the question of medical reimbursement claim of the applicant, the replying respondent is not involved because of the fact that the Health Department is advisory department of Medical Attendance Rules. In view of this position, further action was required to be taken by Respondent No.1 and the replying respondent has nothing to do in respect of the medical reimbursement of the applicant. It is pertinent to mention that as per instructions issued by the replying respondent vide O.M.No.HFW- B(F)12-9/79(Loose) dated 8.11.1994, if any Govt. employees who before attaining the age of superannuation opted to serve int eh Corporations/Boards and Autonomous bodes and after attaining the age of superannuation retire from that bodes, ceased to avail the medical facilities from the HP Government and they will be entitled to get the medical facilities from that bodies from where they retired on superannuation.” 5. At the very outset Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at the bar that insofar as claim at Sr. No.1 is concerned, the same stands already granted to the petitioner in terms of notification issued by the Govt. to that effect. 6. Insofar as the claims at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, there shall be a direction to the respondents to 6 consider the same and take final decision thereon in accordance with Rules within a period of three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the concerned authorities within one month from today. The consequential financial benefits, if any, resulting from such decision shall be paid to the petitioner within a further period of one month, failing which interest @ 7.5% shall also be payable. 7. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 9th November, 2010. Lsp*