IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.513 of 2008 Decided on : July 13, 2010 Manju Malhotra …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner, through the present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought issuance of direction, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to respondents No.1 and 2 to pay to the petitioner pension, as per Triple Benefit Scheme of 1965, together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 2. Admitted facts are that petitioner was employed as a teacher in Arya Girls Senior Secondary School, impleaded as respondent No.3, in the year 1976. Respondent No.3 is a private school, aided by the Government. In the year 1965, when Himachal Pradesh was a Union Territory, Triple Benefit Scheme was notified, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… according to which teachers employed in private schools, aided by the Government, were to get benefit of gratuity, insurance and pension, on making some contribution. 3. Petitioner alleges that she opted for the Scheme and started making contribution from the very beginning, through respondent No.3, and those contributions were remitted to respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. State of Himachal Pradesh and Director, Primary Education, respectively, by deposit in the treasury. 4. Petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 31st August, 2004. Her case for grant of pension, according to Triple Benefit Scheme of 1965, was submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2, but no action was taken. When the petitioner made representations, she was informed that the aforesaid Scheme of 1965 was not applicable to the teachers, appointed subsequent to the year 1971, when Himachal Pradesh, which was earlier Union Territory, was designated as a State. 5. Stand taken by respondents No.1 and 2, in their reply, is that the aforesaid Scheme is not applicable to the teachers appointed subsequent to the year 1971, but no order or notification of the Government has been placed on record, suggesting that the Scheme was withdrawn and …3… made inapplicable, in respect of the teachers appointed in 1971 or subsequent thereto. 6. Respondent No.3 supported petitioner’s case and pleaded that teachers appointed subsequent to 1971 were also being paid pension, in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme of 1965. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 8. In para-13 of the petition, it is specifically pleaded that one Uma Bhatnagar had been appointed as teacher in respondent No.3-school, in the year 1972, and she has been granted pension, under the Triple Benefit Scheme of 1965, on her retirement in the year 1997. The fact is admitted by respondent No.3 in its reply. Respondents No.1 and 2 have also not denied the fact in their reply. Their silence about this averment implies admission. 9. Also, the petitioner has placed on record an order of payment of pension dated 26th March, 2009, copy Annexure PA (submitted with rejoinder), according to which another teacher Anuradha Uppal of respondent No.3-school, who was appointed in the year 1977 and retired in the year 2005, has been granted pension, under the Rules of 1965. Examples of Uma Bhatnagar and Anuradha Uppal give a complete lie to the plea of respondents No.1 and 2 that the …4… Scheme of 1965 is not applicable to the teachers recruited after the year 1971, in private Government aided schools. 10. In view of the above stated position, Writ Petition is allowed and respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to grant pension to the petitioner, in terms of the aforesaid Scheme of 1965 and to pay the arrears, within two months, together with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. The rate of interest is equivalent to the rate of interest payable on General Provident Fund accumulations. Respondent No.1 is further directed to identify the officials responsible for denying pension to the petitioner on false plea and to take departmental action against them, under the relevant rules. Interest ordered to be paid to the petitioner shall also be recovered from those held responsible for rejecting petitioner’s claim for pension. The entire exercise of identifying the responsible officials, taking action against them and also recovering interest from them shall be completed by 31st July, 2011 and affidavit of Principal Secretary (Education), regarding compliance of this direction shall be filed in the first week of August, 2011. Writ petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, as having become infructuous. July 13, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J