HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 459 of 2002 Decided on: 2.1.2008. State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Petitioner. Versus Ruldu Ram and others. ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr.R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For respondents No.1 to 11, 13 to 15, 16(i) to 16(iv) & 17: 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.1016 of 1996, decided on 21.11.2001, wherein the Original Application filed by the respondents was allowed and they were 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 respondents, as petitioners, filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. petitioners alleged that before their transfer of services to Forest Corporation, respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal, they were working in the Forest Department of Government of Himachal Pradesh in different capacities, on temporary basis. It was not disputed by the respondent/State of Himachal Pradesh and Forest Corporation that the petitioners had rendered services with the State Government/respondent No.1 ranging from 16 to 20 years before their absorption in the Forest Corporation. However, their services on the date of transfer were not confirmed and as such they were paid only terminal gratuity in respect of services rendered by them with the State Government/respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the Original Application before the learned Tribunal praying that they may be treated as confirmed employees of the H.P. State Government Forest Department on the date when they were permanently absorbed in the State Forest Corporation and they be also given pension as confirmed employees alongwith arrears of pension, interest etc. Respondents in their reply pleaded that the petitioners have received terminal gratuity from the H.P. Forest Department and as such they are not entitled to claim pensionary benefits. On merits, the application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis and for the first six months, they were transferred to Forest Corporation. This period was treated as deputation. The Forest Corporation was to absorb them lateron permanently with them. It was further pleaded that as a result of their 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 petitioners. 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. They also observed that respondent No.1 was duty bound to convert 80% posts, which were temporary in nature and had been continued for a period of three years into permanent one, but these were not converted into permanent posts inspite of instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh. It was further observed that in case these instructions have been followed, they would have automatically got pension in the Forest Department for the services rendered with respondent No.1. Accordingly, the application was allowed. 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 petitioners were entitled to their absorption in the Forest Corporation and were entitled to be confirmed against the permanent posts prior to their 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 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. 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)