RAJ KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the record are that the petitioner herein was initially appointed on 5.7.1979 as a Clerk (Typist) in the pay scale of Rs.130-6-160/8-200/10-250 in "Govind Sagar Fisheries Co-operative Marketing and Supply Federation, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh" (for short 'Federation'). Since, aforesaid Federation came to be wound up during July, 2007 on account of financial losses, petitioner herein was adjusted in the Department of Fisheries, H.P., with prospective effect, whereafter petitioner after having rendered his five years regular service in the Fisheries Department, superannuated on 30.9.2012 from the of Office of Assistant Director of Fisheries, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh. Since after retirement benefit of services rendered by the petitioner in the Federation was not taken into consideration by the respondents for salary, seniority, promotion, qualifying service for pension, gratuity, provident fund and leave encashment, he approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

(3.) Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, learned counsel representing the petitioner, vehemently argued that since it is not in dispute that petitioner prior to taking over his services by the Department of Fisheries in July 2007 had rendered 28 years regular service with the Federation, which is a Government Department, respondents ought to have taken into consideration aforesaid period of 28 years while computing qualifying service for the purpose of pension, gratuity, provident fund, salary and leave encashment etc. Mr. Dhiman further submitted that since petitioner had been getting all allowances, benefits and salary in terms of instructions issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time while he was rendering his services in the Federation, it cannot be said that petitioner was not the employee of Fisheries Department and as such, he is not entitled to claim the benefit of services rendered by him in the Federation prior to his joining in the Department of Fisheries in July, 2007.