IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 7276 of 2008 Decided on : 23.11.2010 Brij Lal and others ..…Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : None despite actual date notice for 29.9.2010, which was duly served upon one of them namely petitioner No.5. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief vide para 7 (i):- “That the inaction of the respondents in not giving all the pensionary and retrial benefits keeping in view the total service rendered by the applicants in Forest Department and H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd., may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary, contrary, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law and the respondents may please be directed to consider and give all pensionary and other retrial benefits to the applicants by counting total service as one service which the applicants have 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No, 2 rendered in the Forest Department and the H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd.” 2. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, the following averments have been set up vide para 3 on merits:- “Admitted to the extent that the applicants were permanently absorbed in H.P. state Forest Corporation vide H.P. Govt. letter dated 10.02.1998. But it is incorrect to suggest that no pensionary benefits for the service rendered in the Forest Department was given to the applicants. In fact the following applicants have been given pensionary benefits from the date noted against each by the A.G.H.P. Shimla vide his letter numbers given against each:- Sr. No. Name of applicant Date from which pensionary benefits given. Letter No. and date of A.G.H.P. vide which pensionary benefits allowed. 1. S/Shri Brij Lal 21.03.1986 Pen-III/42837/B- 13/99-2000/3432- 335 dated 31.8.99 2. Om Parkash 24.03.1986 Pen- 3/39286/06/85- 85/4956-59 dt 17.12.1998. 3. Mulkh Raj 18.03.1986 Pen-III/42835/M- 11/99-2000/2529- 32 dt. 31.8.99 Whereas in the following two remaining cases the matter has been taken up with the A.G.H.P. shmla to snction the pensionary benefits which are under consideration and expected to be decided very shortly:- Sr. No. Name of applicant Letter No. and date vide which case has been sent to A.G.H.P. Shimla for sanction the pension 1. S/Shri Roshan Lal No.PF/3421 dated 9.6.1999. 3 2. Mangal Singh No. PF/8046 dated 9.10.2000 It is thus incorrect that applicants have not been given the pensionary benefits for the service rendered in the Forest Department.” 3. Respondent No. 3 has taken the following stand vide paras 3 and 6(x) of the reply:- “Contents of this para are admitted to the extent that Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 terminated from Forest Department and permanently absorbed with the Respdt. No.3. It is also admitted that Applicants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 joined their services in H.P. State Forest Corporation on 21.3.86, 13.3.86; 2.6.86 and 18.3.86 and retired from their services after attaining the age of superannuation. But it is to mention here that employees working in Forest Department are covered under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 as amended from time to time and the Employees working with the Rspdt. No.3 are not covered under these Pension Rules. The Respondent Corporation is a H.P. Govt. Undertaking and having its separate entity. The employees of Forest Corporation are covered under Employees Provident Fund Scheme. Thus the applicants are not entitled for counting the whole service rendered by them with the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.3. 6(x) Contents of this para also pertain to Respondents 1 and 2 but it is submitted that applicants are entitled separate pensionary benefits for their service rendered with the respondent No.3 which is covered under Employees Provident Fund Scheme. Respondent No.3 have deposited 12% of their salary (maximum of Rs.600/-) as employee’s share in their EPF Accounts. Hence Applicants have already been paid 12% of their salary 4 (Max. Rs.600/-) per month by depositing in their EPF Accounts in excess of their monthly emoluments . Hence it is totally denied that applicants are entitled to any pensionary benefit from the Respondents in respect of the period for which they have already drawn benefits.” 4. In view of the above replies, in case the petitioners still have any surviving grievance with regard to the factual and legal position, it will be open to them to approach respondent No.3 in which case the said respondent will look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law and justice, after giving personal hearing to the petitioners and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment within one month from today. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 23rd November, 2010. Lsp*