RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through, the, extant writ petition, the writ petitioner has strived to seek, the, rendition, of, a mandamus, upon, the respondents concerned, to release his pension, hence in consonance, with, the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(2.) The writ petitioner was initially appointed, on 1.2.1983, as, a Steno-typist, in the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. On 17.10.2003, he was sent on deputation, to, the H.P. State Election Commission. His services in the latter department became ordered to be permanently, absorbed in the year 2004, inasmuch, as on 31.05.2004.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing, for, the respondents contend, that since Annexure A-7 makes an echoing, that, the afore Rules relied, upon, by the writ petitioner, were made inapplicable, to all appointments, made, in the State of Himachal on or after 15.5.2003, thereupon, they contend that since, the, permanent absorption of the writ petitioner, in the department, of, H.P. State Election Commission, occurred subsequent thereto, inasmuch, as on 31.05.2004, (i) thereupon, it is construable also, as, an appointment, hence, the claim reared by the writ petitioner, in the extant writ petition, cannot be granted, vis-avis, him. Though, the afore submission, as, made at the bar byMr. Rajender Thakur, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing, on behalf of respondent No.1, and, though his afore submission, is, supported by Mr. Prashant Chaudhary, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, however, the afore oral submission, as, addressed by Mr. Rajender Thakaur, CGSC, is, not supported, by the reply furnished, on affidavit, by respondent No.1, (a) wherein, it has been propagated, that, upon, the office of the Accountant General, receiving, the, pension case of the petitioner, only, thereupon, it shall in accordance with the rules, and, instructions, as, become issued, from, the Finance Department of H.P. Government, rather accordingly process, the, pension case, of, the petitioner. The afore reply, on affidavit, as furnished, to the writ petition, by the office of the Accountant General, does not contain, any other contention, than, qua respondent No.1 proceeding to complete, the, processings, of, the, apposite pension paper(s), upon, it receiving them, from, respondent No.3, and, also upon respondent No.2, declaring, the, petitioner qua his becoming entitled, to, the old pension scheme, given his not being covered, by Annexure A-7. Consequently, the afore made submissions are meritless, and, are rejected.