ANAND SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was offered the temporary post of Civil Assistant Surgeon Grade-I (G) vide memorandum dated 21.12.1970. He was permitted to cross efficiency bar on 23.10.1981 w.e.f. 01.01.1981. He applied for the post of GDO-1 in Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalaya, Palampur. He was offered appointment letter by the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidalaya, Palampur on 27.03.1985, pursuant to which he joined his duties on 30.04.1985. His resignation was accepted w.e.f. 30.04.1985 vide letter dated 30.01.1986. Case of the petitioner for terminal pensionary benefits was turned down by the State Government on 31.07.1987. Case of the petitioner was favourably recommended by the Director of Health Service, Himachal Pradesh to the Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh on 28.12.1988. According to the Director of Health Services, petitioner was eligible for terminal benefits, since he had rendered more than 14 years of service. However, fact of the matter is that the representations made by the petitioners were rejected on 18.05.1989 and 13.05.1993. The Additional Secretary (Health), Government of Himachal Pradesh has issued a letter to the Director, Health Services to verify the services of the petitioner for counting the past service rendered in the parent department, i.e., Health and Family Welfare Department on 16th October, 2001 vide Annexure A-13. Petitioner made a representation on 18th December, 2001, mentioning therein the example of one Shri Sushant Awasthy, Medical Officer, who was also appointed in the Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur and his past services were counted. The Registrar has sent a communication to the Chief Medical Officer, Solan on 20.02.2002 vide Annexure A-17 informing him that the services rendered in the department of Health & Family Welfare shall be counted by the University for pension only subject to the remittance of terminal pension liability by the State Government. The Secretary (Health) informed the Chief Medical Officer, Solan, District Solan, copy of which was endorsed to the Registrar, Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni that the decision has already been taken on 31.07.1987, 18.05.1989 and 13.05.1993. Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the respondent-University is bound to count the services rendered by the petitioner in the parent department before his appointment in the respondent-University, i.e., 30.04.1985.

(2.) Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the case of the petitioner already stood rejected and is not covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. He also argued that the services rendered by the petitioner cannot be counted since it was ad hoc service.

(3.) Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has vehemently argued that the services of the petitioner rendered in the parent department can be counted if the State Government remits the terminal retirement benefits granted to the petitioner. He has also relied upon Annexure R-8 issued on 3rd March, 1997.