HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 385 of 2002 Decided on: 2.1.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Petitioner. Versus Ishwar Dass. ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This judgment shall dispose of the writ petition filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the orders passed by the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.1371 of 1996, decided on 23.11.2001, wherein the Original Application filed by the respondent was allowed and he was held entitled to pensionary benefits alongwith arrears of pension and interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent, as petitioner, filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. petitioner alleged that before his transfer of services to Forest Corporation, respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal, he was working in the Forest Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh, on temporary basis. It was not disputed by the respondent/State of Himachal Pradesh and Forest Corporation that the petitioner had rendered services with the State Government/respondent No.1 before his absorption in the Forest Corporation. However, his services on the date of transfer were not confirmed and as such he was paid only terminal gratuity in respect of services rendered by him with the State Government/respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the Original Application before the learned Tribunal praying that he may be treated as confirmed employee of the H.P. State Government Forest Department on the date when he was permanently absorbed in the State Forest Corporation and he may also be given pension as confirmed employee alongwith arrears of pension, interest etc. Respondents in their reply pleaded that the petitioner has received terminal gratuity from the H.P. Forest Department and as such he is not entitled to claim pensionary benefits. On merits, the application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis and for the first six months, he was transferred to Forest Corporation. This period was treated as deputation. The Forest Corporation was to absorb him lateron permanently with them. It was further pleaded that as a result of his absorption in the Forest Corporation, the Forest Department had already given terminal gratuity as per the amount due. The learned State Administrative Tribunal considered the application filed by the petitioner. They also observed that in a similar case in OA No.77 of 1987, vide their orders dated March 24, 1995, as per Annexure A, these pleas have already been considered and allowed by the learned Tribunal. O.A. No.1016 of 1996 was allowed on similar grounds on 21.11.2001 relying upon the decision in OA No.77 of 1987. The learned Tribunal relying upon the earlier decision and the fact that the posts were not converted into permanent passed the following order: “………………the respondents are directed to treat the applicants to have been confirmed against permanent posts prior to their absorption in the Forest Corporation and to pay them pensionary benefits. However, since this original application has been filed only on 6.8.1996 the arrears of pension will be restricted to the period of three years prior to the date of filing of this original application. The applicants will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The terminal gratuity already paid to the applicants will be adjusted as per rules.” It is clear from the observations made by the learned Tribunal that the petitioner was entitled to his absorption in the Forest Corporation and was entitled to be confirmed against the permanent post prior to his absorption in the Forest Corporation. Rule 14(3) of Central Civil Services Pension Rules reads as under: “(3) In the case of a Government servant belonging to a State Government, who is permanently transferred to a service or post to which these rules apply, the continuous service rendered under the State Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, if any, followed without interruption by substantive appointment, or the continuous service rendered under that Government in an officiating or temporary capacity, as the case may be, shall qualify: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply to any such Government servant who is appointed otherwise than by deputation to a service or post to which these rules apply.” A perusal of these rules clearly shows that the petitioner was entitled to pensionary benefits for the services rendered by him with respondent/State of Himachal Pradesh prior to his absorption in Forest Corporation. It has been pointed out that there is no provision for grant of pension in the Forest Corporation and accordingly the terminal gratuity has been paid to him by the Forest Corporation. However, he has a right to get pension for the period he rendered the services before the State Government subject to the condition that he had rendered services for the minimum qualifying period. It was not disputed by the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State that no appeal was filed by the State Government against the grant of pension in the case referred to above and, therefore, the order of the learned State Administrative Tribunal in the earlier decision of the Division Bench had become final. The order passed by the learned Tribunal granting pension to the petitioner, as mentioned above, does not suffer from any illegality and calls for no interference by this court and as such is liable to be confirmed which is confirmed accordingly. The petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own cost. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all the pending applications shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), J. (V.K. Ahuja), J. January 2, 2008. (TILAK)