AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J
1.. The. instant. petition. has. been. filed. for. grant. of following substantive reliefs:
"1. that the applicant be considered for computing of full pension by considering the services of 33.
2.. that the due and admissible arrears may kindly be given to the applicant along with interest.
The petitioner served the Health Department w.e.f. 9.1.1973,. initially. as. an. adhoc. employee,. and. thereafter, ultimately superannuated as Block Medical Officer, Anni, District Kullu on 28.2.2003. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite having rendered 29 years 11 months and 23 days of service, he is not being paid full pension.
Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply, wherein it is averred that the case for grant of pension of the petitioner was sent to the Senior Deputy Accountant General (A&E) Himachal Pradesh by the Chief Medical Officer Kullu, vide letter dated 11.12.2005, which was considered and rejected vide letter No. Pen5/Rev. of Pen w.e.f. 1.1.2006/1516/986788, dated 4.3.2016, with observations that the consolidated pension as on 1.1.2006 was Rs.22, 845/, which was more than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding revised pay band plus grade pay w.e.f. 1.1.2006.
Respondent No.3 has filed separate reply, wherein it is averred that the petitioner after rendering service of 30 years was authorized pension proportionately as he had not completed 33 years of qualifying service as per the extant provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, at the relevant time. It is further averred that since the petitioner stood retired on 28.2.2003, therefore, the amended Pension Rules are not applicable to him (pre2006 retirees/pensioners) as per recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission, which were adopted by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh for its employees/retirees on or after 1.1.2006.
It is vehemently argued by Mr. Y. P. S. Dhaulta, Advocate, that the respondents cannot arbitrarily fix cut off date, however I really fail to understand how the issue of cut off date is involved in the instant case as admittedly, the petitioner has rendered only 29 years 11 months and 23 days of service as against the qualifying service of 33 years for availing of full pension and is thus entitled to pension proportionately.
6 Since the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualifying service, therefore, he is not eligible for full pension.
7 Accordingly, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.