GOVERDHAN DASS Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Water Carrier on and with effect from May 20, 1959, on a fixed salary of Rs. 15 per month in the Border Police, Himachal Pradesh. On and with effect from January 20, I960, he was appointed temporarily as Water -Carrier in the regular scale of Rs. 30 -1 -35 and he continued to serve as such till February 18, 1965. On and with effect from June 12, 1965, he was pointed temporarily as Cook in the same scale in the 1st R P. P. Government of India Armed Police Battalion, which is also called the H. P. P. I. Indian Reserve Battalion (hereinafter referred to as "the Police Battalion"). The Police Battalion along with four other similar Battalions, was disbanded on and with effect from October 1, 1968. The discharged personal of the Police Battalion were offered enrolment in the 1st (HP) S. S B. Battalion, (hereinafter called "the S. S. B. Battalion") on and with effect from the date of its constitution, that is, October 1, 1968. The petitions was amongst those who were accordingly offered enrolment and taken over in the S. S B Battalion on and with effect from October 1, 1968. The appointment accordingly given to the petitioner was, however, treated as fresh appointment as Constable Cook in the pay scale of Rs. 85 -2 -95 -3 -110. The petitioner served in the said post till July 31, 1978 when he was retired on superannuation.

(2.) Upon retirement, the petitioner was held entitled to Death -cum -Retirement Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,660.20 and Service Gratuity amounting to Rs. 2.K39.85 (total Rs. 4,500.05). However, since his appointment in the S. S. B. Battalion with effect from October 1, 1968 was treated as fresh appointment and, on that basis, he was not regarded as having put in the qualifying service of ten years en the date of his retirement, he was not found entitled to receive other pensionary benefits. It was found that the previous service rendered by the petitioner in the Police Battalion could not be taken into consideration for -the purposes of computing the qualifying service because it was regarded as "casual/contingent paid service of the State Government" and that the State Government alone was comp3tent to issue orders for allowing the benefit of pension for the said period (Vide Annexure R/3) A reference was, therefore, made to the State Government to share the pensionary liability in respect of the period of service rendered in the Police Battalion but the State Government declined on the ground that although the petitioner had earlier rendered service under the State Government in the Police Battalion, he had ultimately retired from service as a Central Government employee and under those circumstances, the State Government had no obligation to share the pensionary liability (Vide Annexure R -2)

(3.) The forgoing narration of facts would show that although the petitioner has rendered uninterrupted service for a period of about thirteen years from June 12,1965 till July 31, 1978 and although the qualifying period of service for computing the pensionary benefits, as applicable to him, is ten years, he has been held disentitled to the pensionary benefits except to the limited extent of Death -cum -Retirement Gratuity and Service Gratuity, on account of the pedantic interpretation placed on the relevant rules/instructions and the consequential disowing of the liability by the Union Government as well as by the State Government to bear the financial burden in respect of the pensionary benefits relatable to the period of service rendered by him in the Police Battalion from June 12 1965 to September 30, 1968.