IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 1635 of 2002 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 State of HP & anr …Petitioners Vs. Ramesh Chand and anr …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra,J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, J.(Oral) Petitioners have sought judicial review of order dated 17th May, 2002 passed by the learned State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 775/1996, whereby the aforesaid OA filed by respondents Ramesh Chand and Anil Kumar Ghai, has been allowed and the petitioners have been ordered to give them pensionary /retiral benefits in respect of the service rendered by them in Animal Husbandry department of Government of Himachal Pradesh. 2. Undisputed facts are that the respondents joined service in Animal Husbandry department of Himachal Pradesh prior to the year 1984, when the government decided to set up Himachal Pradesh Milk Federation with a view to separating some functions of the Animal Husbandry department. Services of various employees of Animal Husbandry department, including the respondents, were lent to the newly set up Himachal Pradesh Milk Federation on deputation basis. By the time the respondents’ services were placed at the disposal of the said federation on deputation basis, they had been in service in Animal Husbandry department for 10 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? years or more. An option was given to the respondents whether they wanted to be permanently absorbed in the aforesaid federation. They opted for the same. Later on, the petitioners sought retiral/pensionary benefits in respect of the service rendered by them under the government in Animal Husbandry department. Their request was turned down solely on the ground that even though they had been in service in Animal Husbandry department for 10 years or more, they were temporary employees and they had not been confirmed. Respondents then filed an O.A before the Tribunal. Stand of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that even though there is a rule that an employee of the government after rendering 10 years of service becomes eligible for pensionary and other retiral benefits, yet there is a proviso to the said rule which says that if the service of the concerned servant is temporary or officiating it should be followed by substantive appointment and that in case of the respondents their temporary service in the Animal Husbandry department was not followed by substantive appointment and so they were not entitled to any pensionary benefits. The petitioners placed reliance upon rule 13 of CCS (Pension) Rules in support of this contention. 3. Learned Tribunal rejected the petitioners’ contention and held that the respondents were entitled to pensionary/retiral benefits. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General representing the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the respondents. It has been brought to our notice that some more employees of the Animal Husbandry department situated in the same position as the respondents had also been denied by the petitioners, retiral/pensionary benefits, on the ground that they were temporary servants and their temporary service was not followed by confirmation. Those employees also filed O.As which too were allowed. Judicial review of the judgments of the Tribunal was sought. In one of the judicial review cases, this court has upheld the judgment of the Tribunal. The particulars of the case in which this court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal are Principal Secretary (AH) to the Govt. of HP and another Vs. Mohan Lal, CWP No. 1781/2002 decided on 4.7.2008. A copy of the judgment delivered by Division Bench of this court in the said case has been shown to us. Same is ordered to be placed on record. In the said judgment, it has been held that the respondent who was an employee of the Animal Husbandry department and who after having rendered service in that department for 10 years or more ( on temporary basis) had been permanently absorbed in Himachal Pradesh Milk Federation, was entitled to all the pensionary and retiral benefits under Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules read with rule 37 of Pension Rules, circular issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 31st March, 1982 and clause 4(1) to appendix 11 to CCS (Pension) Rules. Learned Bench has observed that since the employee had been confirmed in the service of the H.P. Milk Federation, that met the requirement of proviso to rule 13 of Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which reads as under: “13. Commencement of qualifying service Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post.” In view of the above stated position, we find no ground for reviewing the order of the learned Tribunal, in exercise of extra ordinary power of this court, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the main writ petition, miscellaneous application (s), if any, are also disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J ( Surjit Singh ), J. 24th February, 2009(sl)