IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 1396 of 2008. Reserved on: 27.11.2008. Decided on: 10.12.2008. Tule Ram. … … … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. … … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajinder Kishore Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Timber Watcher in the forest department in the year 1965. He joined his duties on 10th August, 1965. The designation of the petitioner was changed to Resin Watcher by the respondent-State. He served the forest department with effect from 10.8.1965 to 25.11.1975. He was sent on deputation to the Himachal Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Pradesh State Forest Corporation where he joined his duties on 25.11.1975. He retired on 31st May, 2005. However, he had not been paid the retiral benefits, i.e. pension for the period he has served with the Forest Department for 10 years and 6 months. The petitioner has primarily contended in his petition that the respondents were duty bound to convert 80% posts which were temporary in nature to permanent and if these posts had been converted into permanent as per the instructions, he would have become permanent/confirmed employee of the State Government. The principal stand of the respondents-State in the reply is that the petitioner had served the respondents-State upto 24.11.1975 by rendering 10 years and 6 months of service in temporary capacity. The State has relied upon the instructions issued on 15th December, 1982 and instructions dated 9.6.1987. Mr. Neel Kamal Sood had strenuously argued that his client is entitled to get retiral benefits. He has strenuously relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.459 of 2002 dated 2.1.2008. He further contended that if the respondents- State had converted 80% of the posts into permanent ones as per Notification issued on 29th May, 1973, his client was bound to be made permanent and confirmed. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that since the petitioner has not been made permanent and confirmed, he is not entitled to pensionary benefits for the service he had rendered in forest department. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Since Mr. Neel Kamal Sood had strenuously relied upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.459 of - 3 - 2002, its record was summoned from the record room. It appears from the pleadings of CWP No.459 of 2002 that Shri Ruldu Ram and others had filed the original application bearing No.1016 of 1996 before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal seeking retiral benefits for service they have rendered with the Forest Department before their permanent absorption in Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation and their permanent status on the basis of Notification dated 29th May, 1973. It will be apt at this stage to reproduce the Notification dated 29th May, 1973 which is on the records of CWP No.459 of 2002. It reads thus: - “14.6 Conversion of Temporary Posts into Permanent ones. (i) To be from prospective effect It is made clear that conversion of temporary posts into permanent ones is done from the date of issue of orders or from a prospective date, but not from a retrospective date. In order that the employees do not suffer on account of administrative delay, reviews to convert temporary posts into permanent ones should be of less than a year. (H.P. Govt. Finance Deptts. OM No.12-46/64-Fin. (R&E)-II dated 6.9.1979 (Annexure-14.3) (ii) Percentage conversion of posts in Permanent officers and Establishments 80% of the posts (other than Class IV posts and posts relating to educational institutions) which have been in existence for not less than three years and are likely to be required on permanent basis can be converted into permanent ones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and are required for work of permanent nature can be converted and in the case of educational institutions - 4 - were the enrolment has stabilized, all the teaching posts can be converted into permanent ones.” The learned Tribunal on the basis of the instructions issued on May 29, 1973 had issued the following directions while disposing of the original application bearing No.1016 of 1996 on 21.11.2001:- “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.” The respondent-State filed a writ petition assailing the order passed by the learned Tribunal in original application No.1016 of 1996 dated 21.11.2001 by way of CWP No.459 of 2002. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 2.1.2008. It will be apt at this stage to take note that the learned Tribunal while disposing of the original application No.1016 of 1996 had considered the Judgment of Division Bench of the learned Tribunal rendered in Original Application No.77 of 1987, decided on 24th March, 1995. The Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition bearing No.459 of 2002 has also taken into consideration Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The operative portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.459 of 2002 reads thus: - - 5 - “A perusal of these rules clearly shows that the petitioners were entitled to pensionary benefits for the services rendered by them with respondent/State of Himachal Pradesh prior to their 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 them by the Forest Corporation. However, they have a right to get pension for the period they rendered the services before the State Government subject to the condition that they 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 petitioners, 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.” It is not disputed by the parties that the instructions as quoted hereinabove were issued on 29th May, 1973. It was for the respondents- State to take appropriate steps for converting 80% of the posts into permanent ones. The petitioner cannot be faulted with for inaction on the part of the State. The learned Tribunal while disposing of the original application bearing No.1016 of 1996 has also come to the conclusion that the applicants therein could not be made to suffer due to negligence - 6 - and inaction on the part of the State Government while implementing the instructions dated 29th May, 1973. It was in these circumstances that the learned Tribunal had directed the respondents on 21st November, 2001 to treat the applicants to have been confirmed against permanent posts prior to their absorption in Forest Corporation and to pay them pensionary benefits. The petitioner is similarly situate to the persons who had filed original application bearing No.1016 of 1996 before the learned Tribunal. He was also working in the Forest Department and was absorbed permanently in the Forest Corporation. The petitioner had rendered 10 yeas and 6 months service and on the anology of order passed by the learned Tribunal in original application No.1016 of 1996 which has been up-held by this Court in CWP No.459 of 2002 vide judgment dated January 2, 2008, the petitioner is entitled to same or similar reliefs. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner to have been confirmed against the permanent post on the basis of instructions dated 29th May, 1973 and to pay him his retiral benefits, i.e. pension for the period he has worked with the Forest Department. The respondents are directed to work out the amount within a period of four weeks from today. He is also held entitled to 12% interest per annum on the retiral benefits. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. December 10, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma) (sck). Judge.