The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that Whole Time Contingent Paid service must be counted as qualifying service towards pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, following and applying the principles laid down in its previous decision in Bimla Devi and consistent Supreme Court precedents. This case upholds existing precedent, maintaining strong binding authority within the state on pension eligibility for similarly situated employees.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16406/2025 of BRAHMI DEVI Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010640242025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Pension Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether Whole Time Contingent Paid service must be counted as qualifying service towards pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that previous Whole Time Contingent Paid service must be counted towards qualifying service for pension, consistent with Supreme Court and High Court precedents. It found that exclusions under Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules do not prevent such counting when followed by regularization without interruption, and that service rendered as a full-time contingent paid worker followed by regular appointment cannot be discriminated against for the purposes of pension eligibility. The court relied on Bimla Devi and Kamna Ram (own court), and Supreme Court rulings in Prem Singh, Sunder Singh, Balo Devi, and Sheela Devi. The impugned rejection order was quashed, and a direction was given for reconsideration counting Whole Time Contingent Paid service. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner served as Part Time Water Carrier, was appointed Whole Time Contingent Paid in 2000, regularized as Peon in 2003, and retired in 2011, falling short of 10 years regular service. The petitioner’s claim for counting Whole Time Contingent service towards qualifying service for pension was rejected by the authority, prompting this writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that Whole Time Contingent Paid service, when followed by regularization without interruption, must be counted towards qualifying service for pension eligibility under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
- Relies on binding precedent (Supreme Court and Full Bench High Court decisions) against exclusions in Rule 2.
- Clarifies that factual verification of exact periods of Whole Time Contingent Paid service is necessary, but legal entitlement to count such service for pension is established.
- Legal counsel handling pension claims for similarly placed employees may cite this as strong authority in Himachal Pradesh.
- The decision quashes previous rejection orders not counting Whole Time Contingent Paid service and directs reconsideration as per established legal principles.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court began by noting the petitioner’s service history and the express rejection of her pension claim for not completing 10 years of regular service.
- The petitioner relied on the High Court’s own recent decision in Bimla Devi, where it was held that Whole Time Contingent Paid service must be counted towards qualifying pension service. This was in turn based on consistent Supreme Court and High Court jurisprudence.
- Detailed recitation and adoption of legal reasoning from Bimla Devi, Kamna Ram, and key Supreme Court judgments:
- Supreme Court in Balo Devi and Sunder Singh clarified that exclusion clauses in Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules do not operate to deny counting contingent, work-charged, or contract service for pension, if followed by regularization.
- Rule 17’s purpose (as explained in Sheela Devi) is to allow such previous service to be counted, harmonized with the opening phrase of Rule 2 (“Save as otherwise provided…”).
- In Prem Singh, irrational exclusion of work-charged service for pension was held violative of equality principles; similar reasoning was applied to Whole Time Contingent service.
- The court found, as a matter of law, that categorically denying pension claim on the ground of not counting contingent paid service is no longer tenable; previous orders to the contrary stand quashed.
- On the specific facts, the court directed respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s claim, counting Whole Time Contingent Paid service as qualifying service for pension, within 6 weeks.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner’s Whole Time Contingent Paid service should be counted as qualifying service under CCS (Pension) Rules, based on the High Court’s earlier decisions and Supreme Court precedent.
- Including this period, the required 10 years of qualifying service for pension eligibility is fulfilled.
- Previous decisions in Bimla Devi and Kamna Ram have already been implemented by the authorities.
Respondent (State)
- No opposition was recorded at the final hearing, with the Additional Advocate General not opposing reconsideration in light of existing legal principle and petitioner’s satisfaction with such relief.
Factual Background
The petitioner was initially engaged as a Part Time Water Carrier on 03.06.1997, later appointed as a Whole Time Contingent Paid employee on 31.08.2000, and regularized as a Peon on 29.12.2003. She retired on 30.09.2011, having served 7 years and 9 months of regular service — short of the 10-year threshold for pension eligibility under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Her claim to count the Whole Time Contingent Paid period as qualifying service was rejected; this writ petition challenges that rejection.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpretation centered on Rule 2 and Rule 17 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
- Rule 2 excludes certain categories (“persons paid from contingencies”), but begins with “Save as otherwise provided in these rules”.
- Rule 17 allows counting of contract service for qualifying for pension, if followed by regularization without interruption.
- The court, following Supreme Court precedent, held these provisions must be read harmoniously to prevent discrimination; exclusionary rules cannot bar counting contingent paid service toward pension if regularization follows.
- The first proviso to Rule 13, as a substantive provision, is also to be read in support of this principle, as per Bimla Devi and cited authorities.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded in the judgment; the court followed standard writ jurisdiction procedure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents are affirmed and applied.