Date of Order:
7th August 2023
Bench:
J. ( S. RAVINDRA BHAT )
J. ( ARAVIND KUMAR)
Parties:
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SHEELA DEVI
RESPONDENT(S)
SUBJECT
- The appellant (hereafter referred to as “State”) has brought an appeal before this court, claiming that the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision providing relief to the respondents (hence referred to as “employees”) was incorrect.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 i.e. Old Pension Scheme,
OVERVIEW
- Respondents were employed by the State in its Education and Ayurvedic Department on contract basis. They were regularized at various points, and many were engaged before the 2004 Pension Scheme, which abolished pension per se. They claim they were entitled to reckon the period of contractual employment for pension purposes upon regularization.
- The State rejected the contention, leading to writ petitions. The High Court allowed the petitions and directed the State to extend pensionary benefits based on contractual service, considering regularization period for future benefits.
- The State introduced the New Pension Scheme (NPS) on 04.05.2023, notified in the Official Gazette on 04.05.2023 and embodied in rules proviso under Article 309 of the Indian constitution. The NPS provides pension to employees who retired or died between 15.05.2003 and 31.03.2003, fulfilling eligibility criteria under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 19732. The scheme is subject to government contribution and dividend/return until withdrawal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The State appeals the High Court’s reasoning, arguing that Rule 17 of the CCS Pension Rules is invalid due to the exclusionary definition in Rule 2(g). The appeal argues that employees voluntarily entered into a contract that excluded other service rules.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- Respondents contend that their services as contractual employees were regularized at different points in time.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Learned Advocate General correctly interprets Rule 2(g) as excluding contractual employees from pension rules. However, the rule itself saves the application of other provisions, stating “Save as otherwise provided in these rules.” This interpretation renders Rule 17 redundant, as it is engrafted to accommodate eventual contract regularization and only considers past service as a contractual employee for pension purposes.
- This Court is not persuaded by the submission about the other grounds regarding the voluntariness when the employee joins into contractual services because such terms were in effect so long as the employee was under contract. However, following regularisation, his or her position ended.
- The court finds no merit in the appeal but issues directions for the state to inform employees of option exercising, regardless of engagement dates, within eight weeks of 2003 or subsequently.
- Employees who exercise options must be notified of required contribution amounts and processed within eight weeks. Payment time limits should be indicated, and the entire process should be completed within four months. All pension orders and appeals are disposed of in accordance with the notice.
