IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1559 of 2010 alongwith CWPs No. 2905 of 2008, 3365, 3373 and 3391 of 2009, 1703, 1811, 1903, 2009, 2025, 2414, 4101, 4498, 4797, 4798, 4799, 4830, 4831, 4832, 4900, 4901, 4902, 4911, 5326, 6365, 4461 of 2010 and CWP No. 1118 of 2009. Date of decision: 30.11.2010 ------------------------------------------------- 1.CWP No.1559 of 2010 Raman Kumari vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. CWP No.2905 of 2008 Resham Singh vs. State of H.P. and others. 3. CWP No.3365 of 2009 Sunil Dutt Tyagi vs. State of H.P. and others. 4. CWP No.3373 of 2009 Ashwani Kumar Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others. 5. CWP No.3391 of 2009 Raj Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others. 6. CWP No.1703 of 2010 Anuradha Chuadhary vs. State of H.P. and others. 7. CWP No.1811 of 2010 Anita Penidam vs. State of H.P. and others. 8. CWP No.1903 of 2010 Rajesh Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others. 9. CWP No.2009 of 2010 Minu Bali vs. State of H.P. and others 10. CWP No.2025 of 2010 Nanish Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others 11. CWP No.2414 of 2010 Ramesh Kumar Rattau vs. State of H.P. and others 12. CWP No.4101 of 2010 Vijay Kumar and Ors. vs. State of H.P. and others 13. CWP No.4498 of 2010 Anuradha Mahajan vs. State of H.P. and others 14. CWP No.4797 of 2010 Arun Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others 15. CWP No.4798 of 2010 Sunil Kakkar vs. State of H.P. and others 16. CWP No.4799 of 2010 Umesh vs. State of H.P. and others 17. CWP No.4830 of 2010 Arjun Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others 18. CWP No.4831 of 2010 Yogesh Gupta vs. State of H.P. and others 19. CWP No.4832 of 2010 Poonam Karol vs. State of H.P. and others 20. CWP No.4900 of 2010 Bhupinder vs. State of H.P. and others 21. CWP No.4901 of 2010 Alka vs. State of H.P. and others 22. CWP No.4902 of 2010 Rakesh Purohit vs. State of H.P. and others 23. CWP No.4911 of 2010 Manisha Katoch vs. State of H.P. and others 24. CWP No.5326 of 2010 Sanjeev K. Singh vs. State of H.P. and others 25. CWP No.6365 of 2010 Raveen Soni vs. State of H.P. and others 26. CWP No. 4461 of 2010 Harinder Pal Singh vs. State of H.P. and others 27. CWP No. 1118 of 2009 Rakesh Mohan and others vs State of H.P. and others Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jiarath, Advocate, in CWP No. 1559 of 2010, Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, in CWPs No. 1703, 1811, 1903, 2009, 2025 of 2010 Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No. 2905 of 2008 and CWP No. 5326 of 2010, Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No. 3365, 3373, 3391 of 2009, Mr. G.K. Nadda vice Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate, in CWP No. 2414 of 2010, Mr. P.K. Singh vice Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, in CWP No. 4101 of 2010 and CWP No. 1118 of 2009, Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, in CWP No. 4498 of 2010, Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate, in CWPs No. 4797, 4798, 4799, 4830, 4831, 4832, 4900, 4901, 4902 of 2010,Mr. Surinder Saklani vice Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate, in CWPs No.4911, 4461 of 2010 and Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate, in CWP No. 6365 of 2010. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J. K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State in all the CWPs. Mr. Sandeeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 4 in CWPs No. 3365, 3373, 3391 of 2009, CWPs No. 1703, 4101, 4498, 4911, 4461 of 2010 and in CWP No. 1118 of 2009, for respondent No. 3 in CWPs No. 4797, 4798, 4799, 4830, 4831, 4832, 4900, 4901, 4902, 2414, of 2010. Mr. M.A. Khan, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No. 3 in CWP No. 2905 of 2008, Mr. Ashok Kumar Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No. 3 in CWP No. 5326 of 2010, for respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 6365 of 2010, Justice Kurian Joseph,C.J.(Oral): The petitioners are aggrieved since they have been directed to switch over to the Contributory Pension Scheme introduced as per the notification dated 17-8-2006. It is seen that the said Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced in view of the discontinuance of GPF. in the case of employees appointed by the State Government after 15-5-2003. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they had been appointed on contract/adhoc/tenure basis prior to 15-5-2003 and from the very initial date of appointment they had been contributing to the GPF. At any rate, it is contended that since they have been regularized in service, they can not be compelled to switch over to the CPF. 3. The Learned Advocate General submits that GPF having been discontinued w.e.f. 15-5-2003, as per the amendment introduced under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Annexure-1) and since the petitioners have been appointed regularly in service after 15-5-2003, they are not entitled to be subscribers of GPF. It is further submitted that only to provide for the welfare of such employees appointed after 15-5-2003, the State has introduced Himachal Pradesh Civil Services Contributory Pension Rules, 2006. No doubt, it is notified only on 17-8-2006. 4. But the fact remains that CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 were made inapplicable only as per the amendment referred to above in the case of employees appointed after 15-5-2003. However, on the introduction of CPF, in case any GPF subscription had been made from the employees de horse the amendment to the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 as referred to above, such subscriptions are to be diverted to the CPF, so that such employees do not face any difficulty. In other words, the employees will get the benefit of the contributory pension scheme with effect from the date of their appointment i.e. after 15-5-2003 and they will also be entitled to the consequential benefits of the subscriptions already made to the GPF Scheme but diverted to the CPF Scheme. 5. It is seen from Annexure P-7 Memorandum dated 5.3.2007 in the matter of regularization of Adhoc/Contractual Medical Officers that such employees have been regularized in service with the following among other conditions: “7. The pay of Adhoc/Contractual Medical Officers who have been appointed prior to December, 2002 and allowed Regular scale with increments may be protected while adjusting them in the pay scale of Rs.7880- 13500. 8. Seniority will be given in the following manner: i) Date of joining as Adhoc/contractual Medical Officer. ii) in case of same Date of joining, Date of Birth has been taken as second distinguished criterion.” 6. Therefore, for all practical purposes in the case of these doctors, they have been granted the date of appointment as the date of joining as adhoc/contractual Medical Officers. It is further seen that they have granted increment and seniority w.e.f. the date of joining as adhoc/ contract Medical Officers. 7. In that view of the matter, the submission is that the petitioners are to be deemed to be appointed prior to 15.5.2003 for the purpose of contribution to the GPF and CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. To what extent CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and GPF Rules are interconnected is itself a larger question under Rule 4 of the GPF Rules, then only restriction is that, a contributory to CPF cannot continue GPF. 8. Having regard to the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, having regard to the GPF Rules and having regard to the submissions as above, we are of the view that in the case of the petitioners, the matter requires fresh consideration by the Government since as the amendment introduced w.e.f. 15.5.2003, all appointments made in the State of Himachal Pradesh on or after the date of publication of the notification namely, on 15.5.2003, they alone are not to be covered by CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. It is also to be noted as per the Scheme dated 17.8.2006, the same is only made applicable to the new appointees appointed after 15.5.2003. 9. Having regard to the factual matrix and legal position as referred to above, whereby the appointments though on adhoc/contractual/tenure basis having been made prior to 15.5.2003 and which appointments having been given effect by way of regularization with effect from the date of adhoc/tenure /contractual basis, the contentions as referred to above, assume significance and force. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioners afresh and take appropriate action in the matter expeditiously. Till the orders are passed as above, interim order passed in this case will continue. 9. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice November 30, 2010 ( Justice V.K. Ahuja ), (SDS/BSS) Judge