IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. (T) No. 14535 of 2008 Date of decision: 08.11. 2011 Smt. Raksha Devi …..Petitioner Versus The State of H.P. and others ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Dhiman, Advocate with Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral). The petitioner filed the Original Application before the Erstwhile Tribunal. The Tribunal was abolished as such the application was transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008, and registered as CWP (T) No. 14535/2008. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes. - 2 - (i) That respondents may be directed to count the entire period of service of the applicant from 15.12.1986 to 28.2.2006 for the purposes of grant of service pension and other retiral benefits and to calculate the monthly pension, family pension as well as commutation of pension and to release the same to the applicant from the due date along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the actual date of payment thereof. (ii) That the respondents may be further directed to order the release of the GIS amount to the applicant which has not so far been released to her by them.” 3. Heard and gone through the record. 4. The petitioner was appointed as volunteer teacher on 15.12.1986 in Government Primary School Uprehar, Education Block Nagrota Bagwan, District Kangra. Thereafter she was regularized against the post of J.B.T. by granting her special JBT certificate after the completion of 10 years and was posted in Government Primary School Uthra Gran in the same Block where she joined on 28.5.1997 in the regular pay scale of 1200/-- 2130/-. 5. The petitioner retired from service on 28.2.2006, from the Government Primary School Sheund Tehsil and District Kangra, on attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, she rendered the total regular service of 9 years 2 - 3 - months and 13 days which was less than 10 years, qualifying service for pension. 6. The case of the petitioner has been that prior to her regularization, she worked as Voluntary teacher without any break and paid from the contingency which was followed by the regular appointment, as aforesaid. Thus, in view of the Government of India’s Decision No. 2 below Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, half of the service rendered by her, prior to her regularization as voluntary teacher should have been counted towards the pension as a qualifying service followed by regular service. There was no rebuttal to this contention specifically raised in Para 6(vi) of her petition rather respondents stated that it was a matter of record. Therefore, vide order dated 8.8.2011, this Court sought clarification and it reads as under:- “There is no specific reply to para 6 (iv) of the petition by respondent-department. Learned Additional Advocate General is hereby directed to submit specific reply to it in view of the Government of India’s decision No. 2 of Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension)Rules, 1972 by filing supplementary affidavit of the competent Officer. List the matter on 2.9.2011. Copy dasti on usual terms.” 7. In terms of the aforesaid order, the case was repeatedly listed on 2.9.2011, thereafter on 8.9.2011 but - 4 - there was no compliance of the above direction. Consequently, last opportunity was sought and allowed and the case was adjourned for 11.10.2011. It was specifically made clear that supplementary affidavit in view of the order dated 8.8.2011 be filed, failing which, the matter shall be decided in view of the Government of India’s Decision No. 2 below Rule 14 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 8. Though the supplementary affidavit was filed but the respondents precisely reiterated the stand already taken in reply without responding to the aforesaid directions. 9. Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General submits that he has repeatedly informed the respondents about the said order in writing as well as telephonically but despite that they did not respond but chose to file the present supplementary affidavit without adverting to the query raised. 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts emerging from the record and Government of India’s Decision No. 2 below rule 14 aforesaid, in my opinion, relief sought by the petitioner cannot be denied for the reasons that she worked without break as volunteer teacher w.e.f. 15.12.1986 to 4.12.1996 and was being paid from contingency followed by regular appointment as JBT - 5 - teacher w.e.f. 15.12.1996 to 28.2.2006 in a regular scale and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence her half of the service rendered as voluntary teacher is required to be counted as a qualifying service for pensionary benefits. 11. Therefore, respondents are hereby directed to count the entire period of service of the petitioner rendered by her as volunteer teacher w.e.f. 15.12.1986 followed by her regularization for the purpose of pension and consequential benefits on the basis of her last drawn salary which shall be released to her within a period of three months from the supply of the copy of this judgment to the respondents, failing which, it shall carry an interest @ 12% per annum from the day it fell due. 12. The petition stands disposed so also the pending application(s) if any. November 8, 2011 (Surinder Singh, (cm) Judge