IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6070 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.10.2010. Sh. Surjeet Singh ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Ashok Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel for respondent No.4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition has been filed with following prayers:- (i). That the respondents may be directed to release the retiral/pensionary benefits as admissible from 30.9.74 till July 1998 i.e. when Sh. Shanti Singh passed away. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to release the family pension to the applicant after July 1998. 2. According to the petitioner, his father was appointed as Drawing Teacher on 18.10.1955 and the school was taken over by the Punjab Government on 28.10.1966 and on merger, his father was with the State of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 1.11.1966. He - 2 - superannuated on 30.9.1974. It is stated in the writ petition that the father of the petitioner had been contributing to CPF since 1962. Placing reliance on Annexure A-1, Government order, it is stated that the petitioner’s father is entitled to count the service rendered prior to taking over the school by the Government. Annexure A-1 reads as follows:- “I am directed to say that the question of counting of the District Board Service (prior to 1.10.1957) of the erstwhile employees of Education Department for pension and other retiral benefits as per direction of the Hon’ble HPAT in O.A. No. 1576/93-Shri M.L. Mahajan V/S State of H.P. & others was under consideration of the Govt. for some time past. The Governor of H.P. is now pleased to order that the entire service rendered by the employees of Education Department in the erstwhile District Board Schools would be counted for pensionary and other retirement benefits regardless contributing to C.P.F. or not.” 3. In reply at para 6.5, it is stated that if any rule or instruction issued by the Government is supplied by the applicant, the same will be considered. There is no reference to Annexure A-1 at all. Annexure A-1 clearly provides that service rendered by the father of the petitioner is liable to be counted for the purpose of pension and other permissible benefits. Therefore, there will be a direction to second respondent to look into the matter in the light of Annexure A-1 and take appropriate action in the case of the father of the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a - 3 - copy of the writ petition by the petitioner. The consequential benefits, if any, to which the father of the petitioner is found eligible, shall also be disbursed in accordance with law within another two months. 4. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 26, 2010. (Justice Kuldip Singh), (Hem/pankaj) Judge.