INTHEHIGHCOURTOFHIMACHALPRADESH,SHIMLA

CWPNo.180of2001 alongwithotherconnectedmatters Reservedon:17.05.2012 Decidedon:31.05.2012 CWPNo.180of2001 1. TheStateofH.P.throughSecretary(HPPWD),GovernmentofH.P. 2. TheSuperintendingEngineer,11thCircle,HPPWD,RampurBushahr, (H.P .) Petitioners. Versus 1. RamLal, 2. PitamberDass, BothsonsofSh.SarabDayal; 3. BalDassi, 4. ShantiDevi, 5. AshaKumari, AlldaughtersofSh.SarabDayal; 6. PushpaDevi, DaughterinlawofSh.SarabDayal; 7. Marshal, 8. Diyanash, BothGrandSonsofSh.SarabDayal, AllresidentsofvillageKarsoli,P.O.Narian,TehsilRampurBushahr, DistrictShimla,H.P. Respondents.

CivilWritPetitionunderArticle226/227ofthe ConstitutionofIndia.
Coram TheHonbleMr.JusticeDeepakGupta,J. TheHonbleMr.JusticeV.K.Ahuja,J.
Whetherapprovedforreporting?1Yes.

Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.

:2:
Forthepetitioner(s): Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Vivek SinghThakur,AdditionalAdvocateGeneralandMr. RajeshMandhotra,DeputyAdvocateGeneral. Mr. A.K. Gupta, Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Mr. RamakantSharma,Mr.K.K.VermaandMr.Dheeraj K.Verma,Advocates.

Fortherespondent(s):

DeepakGupta,J.
Bythisjudgmentwearedealingwithanddecidingcommon questionsoflawwhichhaveariseninhundredsofcases.Argumentsinall thesecaseswereheardaltogether,butthejudgmentisbeingdeliveredin CWPNo.180of2001,butshallgovernthedecisionintheotherconnected matters.Acopyofthisjudgmentshallbeplacedontherecordofallthe connectedmatters. 2. petitions:
Whether the services rendered on daily waged basis by the employees before their regularization/grantofworkchargedstatusareto be taken into consideration for the purpose of counting their qualifying service for grant of pensionundertheCentralCivilServices(Pension) Rules,1972,andifso,towhatextent.

The following common question of law arises in these

TheBackground: 3. It would be pertinent to mention that earlier vide our

judgmentdated19.07.2007,wehadheldasfollows:
Weare,therefore,oftheconsideredviewthat50%of the continuous service rendered by the employees on daily rated basis followed by work charge/ regular employment should be taken into account while calculating the qualifying service for purposes of entitlementtoandtheamountofpensiontobepaidto them.

TheStatefiledSpecialLeavePetitionbeforetheApexCourtraisingnew
questionsbeforetheApexCourtand,therefore,allthematterswereagain remandedtous.TheApexCourtheldasfollows:

:3:
Wehaveperusedtherecordsandheardthelearned counselfortheparties.Weareoftheconsideredview thatanentirelynewcasehasbeenweavedoutbefore thisCourt. Therearenopleadingstothateffect. In thisviewofthematter,weareconstrainedtosetaside theimpugnedjudgmentoftheHighCourtandremit thematterstotheHighCourtforfreshadjudication. To avoid anyconfusion,we direct the State tofile a comprehensive amended writ petition in the High Courtwithineightweeksandreplyofthesamebefiled within eight weeks thereafter and rejoinder, if any, withinfourweeksthereafter.

Consequent to the directions of the Apex Court, a consolidated comprehensive writ petition was filed and, thereafter, we heard all the learnedcounselfortheparties. 4. Theemployeesinmostofthesecaseswereinitiallyemployed

as daily rated workmen in the Public Works Department (PWD) or the IrrigationandPublicHealth(IPH)DepartmentsoftheStateofHimachal Pradesh.Servicesofmostoftheemployeeswereregularizedintermsofthe schemeframedbytheGovernmentandapprovedbytheApexCourt in MoolRajUpadhyayaversusStateofH.P.andothers,1994Supp.(2)SCC 316,relevantportionofwhichreadsasfollows:
(1)Dailywage/musterrollworkers,whetherskilledor unskilled, who have completed 10 years or more of continuousservicewithaminimumof240daysina calendar year on 31.12.1993, shall be appointed as workchargedemployeeswitheffectfrom1.1.1994and shallbeputinthetimescaleofpayapplicabletothe correspondinglowestgradeintheGovernment; (2)dailywage/musterrollworkers,whetherskilledor unskilled who have not completed 10 years of continuousservicewithaminimumof240daysina calendar year on 31.12.1993, shall be appointed as workchargedemployeeswitheffectfromthedatethey completethesaidperiodof10yearsofserviceandon suchappointmenttheyshallbeputinthetimescaleof payapplicabletothelowestgradeintheGovernment; (3)dailywage/musterrollworkers,whetherskilledor unskilledwhohavenotcompleted10yearsof

:4:
servicewithaminimumof240daysinacalendaryear on 31.12.1993, shall bepaiddailywagesatthe rates prescribed by the Government of Himachal Pradesh fromtimetotimefordailywageemployeesfallingin Class III and Class IV till they are appointed as workchargedemployeesinaccordancewithparagraph 2; (4)dailywage/musterrollworkersshallberegularized in a phased manner on the basis of senioritycum suitabilityincludingphysicalfitness.Onregularization they shall be put in the minimum of the timescale payabletothecorrespondinglowestgradeapplicable totheGovernmentandwouldbeentitledtoallother benefitsavailabletoregulargovernmentservantsofthe correspondinggrade.

5.

AsperthepolicyframedbytheGovernment,theservicesof

allthedailyratedworkmenwhohadcompleted10yearsuninterrupted services,weretobeplacedontheworkchargeestablishment.Itwouldbe pertinent to mention that the services of a few of the employees were placedonworkchargeestablishmentevenpriortothejudgmentinMool Raj Upadhyayas case. The employees after being placed in the work chargeestablishmentwerebroughtontheregularestablishment.However, whentheemployeessuperannuatedfromserviceonattainingtheageof superannuation, the benefit of the service rendered by them on daily wageswasnotgiventothem.Consequently,theemployeesfiledOriginal ApplicationsbeforetheerstwhileH.P.StateAdministrativeTribunal. 6. ThelearnedTribunalpassedthreeseparatetypesofordersin

variouscases.Insomecases,liketheoneoutofwhichthepresentwrit petition arises, a direction wasgivenbythelearnedTribunalthatthe employee be regularizedfromanearlierdatesothattheemployeehas tenyearsofregularserviceandbecomesentitledtograntof pensionarybenefits.Insomecases,thelearnedTribunaldirectedthat theentireservicerenderedondailywageserviceshallbe

:5: countedforreckoningthequalifyingservice.Themajorityofcasesfallin the third category wherein the learned Tribunal relying upon MemorandumNo.2underRule14oftheCCS(Pension)Rulesheldthatthe employeeswereheldentitledtothebenefitofcountinghalfoftheservice renderedondailywagebasisandhalfoftheirserviceondailywagebasis wasaddedtotheirentireserviceonregularbasistoarriveatthequalifying serviceforthepurposeofpension. Wehad,byourearlierdecision,also relied upon the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Office Memorandumdated14thMay,1968. 7. BeforetheApexCourt,thestandtakenbytheStatewasthat

theOfficeMemoranduminquestionwasneveradoptedbytheStateof HimachalPradesh either for thepaymentofpensionor for paymentof gratuity.ItappearsthatbeforetheApexCourt,itwasstatedthatthisOffice MemorandumhadneverbeenfiledbeforethisCourtbyanyoftheparties and was handed over to the Court by the learned counsel for the employeesatthetimeofhearing. 8. There is another category of cases which are being again

decided by this judgment. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, various writ petitions were decided by otherBenchesofthisCourtwhereinthepetitionsweredisposedof,butit wasmadeclearthatthepartieswouldabidebythejudgmentoftheApex CourtinappealarisingoutofCWPNo. 180of2001, titledState ofH.P. versusSarabDayal.Sincetherightsofthepersonsinthesepetitionswere alsogoingtobeeffected,weheardtheotherwritpetitionsalso.Wehave alsodealtwithsomewritpetitionswhichhavebeendirectlyfiledinthis CourtafterthedecisioninSarabDayal'scase.

:6: 9. Atthisstage,itwouldbepertinenttomentionthatafterthe

casewasremandedfromtheApexCourt,SarabDayaldiedandhislegal heirs have been brought on record and thus, the title of the case has changedtoStateofH.P .versusRamLalandothers. 10. Weareconstrainedtoobservethataseniorofficeroftherank

ofSecretarytotheGovernmentofHimachalPradeshfiledatotallyfalse affidavitbeforetheApexCourt. Infact,asnotedinourearlierjudgment also,thelearnedTribunalitselfhadnoticedthismemorandumandina largenumberofcasesgrantedbenefitof50%oftheservicerenderedon daily wages to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Inalargenumberofwritpetitions, theState itselfhad made referencetotheOfficeMemoranduminthemainwritpetitionandhad contendedthattheOfficeMemorandumappliedonly tothecontingent employeesandnottodailywagedemployees.Referencemaybemadeto theorderofthelearnedTribunalin OA(D)No.26of2001,titledKartar SinghversusStateofH.P.andothers,whichreadsasfollows:
3. This view of the respondents State is not sustainableinviewoftheprovisionslaiddowninCCS (Pension)Rule14whichlaysdowntheconditionsubject to which service qualifying for grant of pensionary benefits. Under these rules, the Govt. of India vide its O.M.No.12(1)E.V./68datedMay14,1968hasclearly laiddownthatinpursuanceoftherecommendationof theCouncil,ithasbeendecidedthathalfoftheservice paidfromcontingencywillbeallowedtocounttowards pensionatthetimeofabsorptioninregularemployment in respect of service paid from contingency involving wholetimeemployment. Admittedly,theapplicantwas being paid daily wages for the full time work and the applicantwasnotworkingonparttimebasis.Thusthe applicanthasworkedfor 10yearsondailywagebasis andassuchhisserviceforpension@halfwillcometo five years plus five years and three of these rules he is entitledforpensionaftertenyearsofqualifyingservice. Theapplicanthasbeenretiredonsuperannuationandin accordancewiththeprovisionsofCCS(Pension)Rules,as suchheisentitledforgrantofpension.

:7: 11. TheavermentsmadebytheStatein CWPNo.1361of2002,

titledStateofH.P .andothersversusKartarSingh,readasfollows:
..................... The Hon'ble Tribunal has gravely erred in holding the respondententitleforcountingof ofhisdailywaged serviceforpensionarybenefitsbyapplyingtheprovision of decision No. II of the Govt. of India below rule 14 contained in OM No. E12(1)EV/68 dated 14.5.68 whereasthefactisthatthisprovisionofrulewillclearly showthatonlythatserviceiscountableforpensionary benefitswhichhasbeenpaidfromthecontingencyfunds whereas in the present case, the respondent while workingondailywagesworkershadbeenpaidfromthe workconcerned. Therefore,thisprovisionofrulesisnot applicableinthepresentcase. ........................

12.

Thus, it is clear that the Office Memorandum was not

producedbeforethisCourtonlyatthetimeofhearing.Bethatasitmay, nowthatthematterhasbeenreferredbacktous,weareconsideringthe questionwhethertheOfficeMemorandumisindeedapplicableornot. TheHistoricalBackground: 13. Toappreciatethisquestion,itwouldberelevanttopointout

thatthe State ofHimachal Pradesh was initially constituted asaPartC Stateintheyear1948. However,witheffectfrom01.07.1963,Himachal PradeshbecameaUnionTerritorywithinthemeaningoftheGovernment ofUnionTerritoriesAct,1963.On1stNovember,1966,aftertheenactment ofthePunjabReorganizationActof1966,certainhillyareasoftheStateof Punjab were merged in the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. The UnionTerritoryofHimachalPradeshbecameafullfledgedStatew.e.f.25th January,1971intermsoftheStateofHimachalPradeshAct,1970.Itisin this context that we have to understand the applicability of the Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government prior to 25th January, 1971.

:8: 14. Asnotedabove,thestandoftheStatebeforetheApexCourt

was that the State of Himachal Pradesh had never adopted the Office Memorandumreferredtoabove.On14thMay,1968,theStateofHimachal Pradesh was a Union Territory governed by the Government of Union TerritoriesAct,1963.IntermsofthisAct,especiallyprovisotoSection58 (2),thetenure,remunerationandtermsandconditionsofserviceofany officer could not be altered to his disadvantage without the previous sanctionoftheCentralGovernment.TheGovernmentofUnionTerritories ActdidnotentitletheUnionTerritorytoframeitsownrulesandincaseit frameditsownrules,itwasrequiredtoobtainpriorapprovaloftheCentral Government. IntheUnionTerritories,theCentralRuleswereapplicable. Therefore,on4thApril,2012,aftertakingintoconsiderationalltheserules, wehaddirectedtheSecretary(Finance)totheGovernmentofHimachal Pradesh to file a fresh affidavit stating whether such notifications or memorandums issued by the Central Government were ipso facto applicableorwhethertheUnionTerritoryfollowedthepracticeofissuing notificationsmakingthemapplicableintheUnionTerritory. 15. The Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of

Himachal Pradesh, Shri Shrikant Baldi, has filed an affidavit, relevant portionofwhichreadsasfollows:
3.Thatinthisconnectionitisstatedthatpriorto1971,the HimachalPradeshwasaUnionTerritoryandtheCentral Civil Regulations (CSR) as notified by the Govt. of India fromtimetotimewereapplicabletotheemployeesofthe UnionTerritoryincludingtheofficememorandaandother notificationsissuedbytheCentralGovernmentthereunder asperpara2oftheGovernmentofIndia,MinistryofHome Affairs letter No. F.28/59Him dated 13th July, 1959 (Annexure RI). Hence, it appears that Notifications and OfficeMemorandaissuedbytheGovernmentofIndiawere applicabletoUnionTerritoryofHimachalPradesh.

:9: Therefore,atthisstage,itisnotseriouslydisputedthatin1968whenthis Office Memorandum wasissued, the same automatically applied in the UnionTerritoryofHimachalPradesh. 16. As earlier pointed out, the State of Himachal Pradesh was

constitutedon25thJanuary,1971,undertheStateofHimachalPradeshAct, 1970. Obviously, the State has the power to make its own rules and, thereafter,therulesoftheCentrewouldnotipsofactobeapplicable. 17. Havingsaidso,wemustmakereferencetoSection49ofthe

StateofHimachalPradeshAct,whichreadsasfollows:
49.Continuanceofexistinglasandtheiradaptation. (1). Alllawsinforce,immediatelybeforetheappointedday, in the existing Union territory of Himachal Pradesh shall continue tobe in force in theStateof Himachal Pradesh until altered, repealed or amended by a competentLegislatureorothercompetentauthority. (2). Forthepurposeoffacilitatingtheapplicationinrelation totheStateofHimachalPradeshofanylawmadebefore the appointed day, the appropriate Government may, within two years from that day, by order, make such adaptations and modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and modifications so madeuntilaltered,repealedoramendedbyacompetent Legislatureorothercompetentauthority. Explanation. In this section, the expression appropriate Government means, as respects any law relatingtoamatterenumeratedintheUnionListinthe Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the Central Government; and as respects any other law, the GovernmentoftheStateofHimachalPradesh.

18.

A bare perusal of this Section shows that all laws in force

immediately before the appointed day, i.e. 25th January, 1971, would continuetobeinforceuntilaltered, repealedor amended bytheState Legislature. UnderSubsection(2)ofSection49,theStateofHimachal Pradeshcouldmakeanadaptationandmodificationofthelawsbyway

:10: ofrepealoramendmentinrespectoflawswhichfellwithintheStatelist. 19. Here,itwouldbepertinenttomentionthaton20th August,

1971,theH.P . GovernmentissuedanOfficeMemorandum directingthe continuance of service rules, regulations and instructions consequent uponHimachalPradeshbecomingaState.InthisOfficeMemorandum,it wasstatedthattheCentralRuleswouldcontinuetoapply.However,there wasnospecificmentionoftheCivilServiceRegulationsorthePension Chapter thereof. Thereafter, on 1st January, 1972, another Office MemorandumwasissuedwhereinitwasstatedthattheStateofHimachal Pradesh had decided in consultation with the Government of India to enforcethePunjabCivilServiceRulesintheStateofHimachalPradesh w.e.f. 1st January, 1972. This included the pension chapter of the Civil ServiceRegulationsandtheliberalizedpensionrules. Theemployeesin theStateofHimachalPradeshwereheldentitledtoexerciseanoptionto either retain the existing Central Civil Service Rules or to adopt for the Punjab Civil Service Rules. In case the government servants failed to exercisesuchoption,theywouldbedeemedtohaveoptedforthePunjab Rules.Thetimeforexercisingtheoptionwasextendedfromtimetotime upto31.03.1973.On18.01.1973,theStatetookatotallydifferentdecision. ItwasobservedthatamajorityofStateGovernmentemployeeshavenot exercisedtheiroptionforeithersetoftheRules. Itwasfurtherdirected thattheStatehaddecidedthattheoldRules(CentralRules),astheyexisted on31.12.1971,wouldcontinuetobeinforceandwouldbedeemedtobe theRulesoftheStateGovernmenttillalltheemployeeshadexercised

:11: theiroption.Finally,on30.03.1974,theStateissuedanotification,relevant portionofwhichreadsasfollows:

In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to revoke the earlier decision regarding enforcement of Punjab Civil Service Rules,VolumesI,IIandIIIwitheffectfrom111972,from thesamedate. 2. The Governor is also pleased to order that the CentralCivilServiceRules,namely: 1. FundamentalRulesandSupplementaryRules; 2. PensionChapteroftheCivilServiceRegulations; 3. Liberalized Pension Rules/Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules,1972; 4. Family Pension Scheme for Central Government employees,1964; 5. General Provident Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960; 6. CivilPensionCommutationRules; 7. ContributoryProvidentFund(India)Rules,1960; 8. StudyLeaveRules,1962; 9. Revised Leave Rules, 1933/Central Civil Services (Leave)Rules,1972; 10. Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965; 11. CentralCivilServices(Classification,Controland Appeal)Rules,1965; 12. CentralCivilServices(Conduct)Rules,1964;and 13. Leave Travel Concession Scheme of the Central Government; willbedeemedtohavebeeninforceinHimachalPradesh duringthisperiod,andwillbedeemedtobeStateRulesin respect of the various matters covered by them. These RuleswillremainapplicabletoHimachalPradeshGovt. employees. 3. The Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is also pleasedtodecidethattheGovernmentservants whohave

:12:
already opted for the Punjab Civil Service Rules in pursuance of the earlier decision of the Govt. will be entitledtoexercisetheiroptionsafresh,forbeinggoverned bytheCentralCivilServiceRuleslistedabove.Theoption willbeexercisablewithinaperiodof3monthsfromthe dateofissueofthisorder.ThoseGovt.servantswhohave alreadyexercisedtheiroptionsforthePunjabCivilService Rules in pursuance of earlier decision and desire to be governedbysuchrulesshallbegovernedbythoserulesif theydonotexercisetheiroptionsasaforesaid.Thecases ofemployeeswhohaveretiredorwhosecaseshavebeen decidedbeforethedateofissueofthisnotificationshall notbereopenedandwillbedeemedtobegovernedin accordancewiththePunjaborCentralCivilServiceRules as the case may be for which they have given their options.

20.

Atthisstage,itwouldbepertinenttomentionthattheCCS

(Pension)RuleswereframedbytheCentralGovernmentintheyear1972 andenforcedw.e.f.1st June,1972. However,priortotheissuanceofthe letter dated 30.03.1974, there isno material onrecordto showthat the StateofHimachalPradeshhadmadetheserulesapplicableintheState. 21. Fromtheaforesaidfacts,itisapparentthattheGovernment

ofIndiaNotificationdated14thMay,1968decisionunderRule14wasipso factoapplicableintheUnionTerritoryofHimachalPradesh.Therewasno requirement that the State had to pass an order adopting the said notification. The Memorandum automatically applied in the Union Territory. IntermsofSection49ofoftheStateofHimachalPradeshAct, referredtoabove,theserulescontinuedtobeinforceand,therefore,the OfficeMemorandumalsocontinuedtoapply. 22. Weareoftheconsideredviewthattherecanbenodispute

thattheOfficeMemoranduminquestionwasapplicableintheStateof Himachal Pradesh till 1st June, 1972 when the Central Civil Service (Pension)Ruleswereenforcedoratbesttill30th March,1974,whenthe notification,quotedhereinabove,wasissued.

:13: 23. ThemainissueiswhetheraftertheStateofHimachalPradesh

adopted the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, was the Office Memorandumstillapplicableornot? TheLegalProvisions: 24. Toappreciatetheaforesaidsubmissions,itwouldberelevant

torefertothevariouslegalprovisionsofthePensionRules. Rule2ofthe Pension Rules provides that the rules shall apply to all government servants,butshallnotapplyto:
(a)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (b)personsincasualanddailyratedemployment; (c)personspaidfromcontingencies.

25.

RelevantportionofRule13readsasfollows:
13.Commencementofqualifyingservice Subject to the provisions of these rules, qualifying serviceofaGovernmentservantshallcommencefrom thedatehetakeschargeoftheposttowhichheisfirst appointedeithersubstantivelyorinanofficiatingor temporarycapacity: Provided that officiating or temporary serviceisfollowedwithoutinterruptionbysubstantive appointmentinthesameoranotherserviceorpost.

26.

Rule14readsthus:
14.Conditionssubjecttowhichservicequalifies (1)TheserviceofaGovernmentservantshallnotqualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (2) For the purposes of subrule (1), the expression ServicemeansserviceundertheGovernmentandpaid bythatGovernmentfromtheConsolidatedFundofIndia or a Local Fund administered by that Government but does not include service in a nonpensionable establishmentunlesssuchserviceistreatedasqualifying servicebythatGovernment. (3)InthecaseofaGovernmentservantbelonging toaStateGovernment,whoispermanentlytransferred toaserviceorposttowhichtheserulesapply,the

:14:
continuousservicerenderedundertheStateGovernment in an officiating ortemporary capacity, if any,followed withoutinterruptionbysubstantiveappointment,orthe continuousservicerenderedunderthatGovernmentinan officiatingortemporarycapacity,asthecasemaybe,shall qualify: Provided that nothing contained in this subrule shall applytoanysuchGovernmentservantwhoisappointed otherwisethanbydeputationtoaserviceorposttowhich theserulesapply.

27.

Rule49oftheRulesreadsasfollows:
49.AmountofPension (1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completingqualifyingserviceoftenyears,theamountof service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half months emoluments for every completed six monthly periodofqualifyingservice. (2)(a)InthecaseofaGovernmentservantretiringin accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty threeyears,theamountofpensionshallbecalculatedat fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees permensum. (b) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirtythree years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amountofpensionshallbeproportionatetotheamount ofpensionadmissibleunderClause(a)andinnocase theamountofpensionshallbelessthan[Rupeesthree hundredandseventyfive]permensem. (c) notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) andClause(b),theamountofinvalidpensionshallnot be less than the amount of familypension admissible undersubrule(2)ofRule54. (3)In calculating the length of qualifying service, fractionofayearequaltothreemonthsandaboveshall betreatedasacompletedonehalfyearandreckonedas qualifyingservice. (4)The amount of pension finally determined under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of subrule (2), shall be expressed in whole rupees and where the pension containsafractionofarupeeitshallberoundedoffto thenexthigherrupee. (5)}Deleted (6)}Deleted.

:15: 28. TheGovernmentofIndiahastakenadecisionunderRule14

whichhasbeennotifiedbyG.I.,M.F.,O.M.No.F.12(1)E.V/68,datedthe 14thMay,1968.Thesaiddecisionreadsasfollows:
Countinghalfoftheservicepaidfromcontingencies with regular service. Under Article 368 of the CSRs (Rule14),periodsofservicepaidfromcontingenciesdo not count as qualifying service for pension. In some cases,employeespaidfromcontingenciesareemployed in types of work requiring services of whosetime workersandarepaidonmonthlyratesofpayordaily ratescomputedandpaidonmonthlybasisandonbeing found fit brought on to regular establishment. The question whether in such cases service paid from contingencies should be allowed to count for pension and if so, to what extent has been considered in the National Council and in pursuance of the recommendationoftheCouncil,ithasbeendecidedthat halftheservicepaidfromcontingencieswillbeallowed tocounttowardspensionatthetimeofabsorptionin regularemploymentsubjecttothefollowingconditions, viz: (a)Servicepaidfromcontingenciesshouldhavebeenin ajobinvolvingwholetimeemployment(andnotpart timeforaportionoftheday). (b)Servicepaidfromcontingenciesshouldbeinatype ofworkorjobforwhichregularpostscouldhavebeen sanctioned,e.g.,malis,chowkidars,khalasis,etc. (c) The service should have been one for which the payment is made either on monthly or daily rates computed and paid on a monthly basis and which thoughnotanalogoustotheregularscaleofpayshould bearsomerelationinthematterofpaytothosebeing paidforsimilarjobsbeingperformedbystaffsinregular establishments. (d) The service paid from contingencies should have beencontinuousandfollowedbyabsorptioninregular employmentwithoutabreak. (e) Subject to the above conditions being fulfilled, the weightageforpastservicepaidfromcontingencieswill belimitedtotheperiodafter1stJanuary,1961,forwhich authenticrecordsofservicemaybeavailable. It has been decided that half the service paid from contingencies will be allowed to be counted for the purpose of terminal gratuity as admissible under the CCS (TS) Rues, 1965, where the staff paid fromcontingenciesissubsequentlyappointedonregular

:16:
basis.Thebenefitwillbesubjecttotheconditionslaid downinOM,datedthe14thMay,1968,above.

29.

Rule89(1)ofthePensionRulesreadsasfollows:
89.RepealandSaving. (1) On the commencement of these rules, every rule, regulation or order including Office Memorandum (hereinafter referred to in this rule as the old rule) in forceimmediatelybeforesuchcommencementshall,in sofarasitprovidesforanyofthematterscontainedin theserules,ceasetooperate.

EntitlementtoPension;TheLawcited: 30. AperusalofRule492(b)aforesaidmakesitabsolutelyclear

that in case a Government servant retires on attaining the age of superannuationaftercompleting10yearsofservice,heshallbeentitledto pensionattheprescribedrates.Alltheemployeesinthepresentcasehave not completed 10 years of regular service. They claim that the service renderedbythemondailyratedbasisbeforetheywereputinthework charge/regularestablishmentshouldbereckonedandcountedintermsof Rule13andinthealternative,theypraythatintermsofthedecisionofthe Government,dated14thMay,1968,quotedhereinabove,atleast ofthe servicerenderedondailywageshouldbeaddedtotheirregularservicefor thepurposeofcalculatingthequalifyingservicerenderedbythemforthe purposesofgrantofpension. 31. ThestandoftheStateisthatRules2(b)and2(c)specifically

dealwithpersonsincasualanddailyratedappointmentandpersonspaid from contingencies and they are excluded from the rules. Therefore, accordingtotheState,thelearnedTribunalgravelyerredinholdingthat thebenefitofthedecisionoftheGovernmentofIndiashouldbegivento theemployeesinthepresentcases.

:17: 32. A large number of decisions have been cited before us by

bothsides.Reliancehasbeenplacedbytheemployeesonthedecisionofa DivisionBenchofthisCourtrenderedinShakuntlaDeviversusTheState ofHimachalPradeshandothers,1988(2)SLC18, whereinthisCourtin para6passedthefollowingorder:

6.Fortheforegoingreasons,itappearsexpedientinthe interest of justice to direct the State Government to considerinaccordancewithlawandinconformitywith theprinciplesofequity,justiceandgoodconscienceand in light of the observations hereinabove made the question of granting to the deceased husband of the petitionerthebenefitofexpostfactoregularizationof service and to work out and grant all the monetary benefits including the pensionary benefits due and admissible in accordance with law to the petitioner. CompliancetobereportonorbeforeFebruary29,1988.

33.

A perusal of the aforesaid portion of the judgment clearly

shows that this court did not itself give any finding with regard to the entitlement to pension, but directed the State to consider the same in accordance with law and in accordance with the principles of equity, justiceandgoodconscience.Thiswasadirectiongiveninthecontextof thepeculiarfactsofthecaseanddoesnotlaydownanypropositionoflaw. 34. TheemployeesrelieduponthejudgmentoftheApexCourtin

D.S.NakaraandothersversusUnionofIndia,AIR1983SupremeCourt 130.Weareoftheconsideredviewthatthisjudgmenthasnoapplicability tothefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase. Inthatcase,theApexCourt only decided the question with regard to the arbitrary classification betweenthepensionersbasedonthedateofretirement. 35. Similarly,thejudgmentofalearnedSingleJudgeofGujarat

HighCourtinRatilalHiralalPatelversusState,1983(2)S.L.R.

:18: 43, isnotapplicabletothefactsandcircumstancesofthiscase. Inthe present cases, we are mainly concerned with the question whether the employeesareentitledtocountthedailywagedservicesrenderedbythem forcalculatingtheirqualifyingservicetermsofthePensionRulesof1972. 36. InKesarChandversusStateofPunjabandothers,1988(5)

SLR27, aFullBenchofthePunjabandHaryanaHighCourtheldthatan employeeisentitledtocounttheservicerenderedbyhimonworkcharge basisforcountingthewholeofhisserviceforthepurposeofcalculating the pension and gratuity. The State of Himachal Pradesh is admittedly counting the service rendered on work charge basis for calculating the pension.Thisdecisiondoesnotdealwiththequestionofcountingservice renderedondailywagesforcalculatingthequalifyingserviceforpurposes ofpension. 37. InStateofU.P.andothersversusAjayKumar,(1997)4SCC

88, the Supreme Court held that before the High Court can order regularizationofanemployeetheremustexistapostandtheremustbe administrative instructions or statutory rules in operation to appoint a persontothepost.TheSupremeCourtheldDailywageappointmentwill obviouslybeinrelationtocontingentestablishmentinwhichtherecannot existanypostanditcontinuessolongastheworkexists. 38. InUnionofIndiaandothersversusRakeshKumar,(2001)4

SCC309,theApexCourtwasdealingwithacaseinwhichmembersofthe BSFwhohadresignedfromtheirpostsafterservingformorethan10years, but less than 20 years, had been held entitled to pension/pensionary benefitsbyadecisionofthiscourtrenderedinCWPNo.761of1998.The Apex Court while dealing with Rule 49 of the Pension Rules held as follows:

:19:
16.xxxxxxxxxxxx.Thiswouldonlymeanthatin case where a government servant retires on superannuationi.e.theageofcompulsoryretirementas per service conditions or in accordance with the CCS (Pension)Rules,aftercompleting10yearsofqualifying service,hewouldgetpensionwhichistobecalculated andquantifiedasprovidedunderclause(2)ofRule49.x xxxx.

39.

TheCourtfurtherwentontoholdthatthiswouldonlyapply

tothecasesofretirementonsuperannuationorvoluntaryretirementafter 20yearsofqualifyingserviceorcompulsoryretirementaftertheprescribed age. It further went on to hold that if the employee had resigned from serviceaftercompletingmorethan10yearsofqualifyingservice,butless than20years,hewouldnotbeeligibletogetpensionarybenefits.Dealing withthequestionastowhetherthecourthadthejurisdictiontoissuea writdirectingpaymentofpensionontheground ofhardship, the Apex Courtheldasfollows:
21. x x x x x x x x x. Therefore, by erroneous interpretation of the Rules if pensionary benefits are granted to someone it would not mean that the said mistakeshouldbeperpetuatedbydirectionoftheCourt. Itwouldbeunjustifiabletosubmitthatbyappropriate writ, the Court should direct something which is contrarytothestatutoryrules.Insuchcases,thereisno questionofapplicationofArticle14oftheConstitution. Nopersoncanclaimanyrightonthebasisofdecision whichisdehorsthestatutoryrulesnorcantherebeany estoppel. Further, in such cases there cannot be any considerationonthegroundofhardship.IftheRulesare notprovidingforgrantofpensionarybenefitsitisfor theauthoritytodecideandframeappropriaterulesbut the Court cannot direct payment of pension on the ground of socalled hardship likely to be caused to a personwhohasresignedwithoutcompletingqualifying serviceforgettingpensionarybenefits.Asanormalrule, pensionarybenefitsaregrantedtoagovernmentservant who is required to retire on his attaining the age of compulsoryretirementexceptinthosecaseswherethere arespecialprovisions.

40.

AlearnedSingleJudgeoftheDelhiHighCourtin KesriDevi

versusMunicipalCorporationofDelhi,2005(2)SLR112, heldthatthe qualifyingserviceistocommencefromthedateanemployee

:20: takeschargeoftheposttowhichsheorheissubstantivelyorinofficiating capacityortemporarycapacityappointed.Therefore,theentireperiodof adhocservicerenderedbyaSafaiKaramchariwasdirectedtobetakeninto accountwhilecalculatingherservice.However,thisdecisiondoesnottake intoaccountRule2oftheCCSPensionRules. 41. ADivisionBenchofthePunjabandHaryanaHighCourtin

Mangat Ram versus Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and others, 2005(5)SLR793,followingtheFullBenchDecisioninKesarChandscase heldthattheperiodspentbythedailywagercannotbeexcludedwhile calculating the qualifying service as it was followed by regular service whichwascontinuous.InRamDiaandothersversusUttarHaryanaBijli VitranNigamLtd.(UHBVNL)andanother,2005(8)SLR765, theservice renderedonworkchargebasishasbeendirectedtobetakenintoaccount. InboththesecasestheprovisionsofRule2oftheCCSCCARuleshavenot beentakenintoaccount. 42. AlearnedSingleJudgeofthePunjabandHaryanaHighCourt

inBabuRamversusStateofHaryanaandothers,2009(4)SLR337,again held thatthe servicesrenderedbyemployeesondaily wagesshould be countedtowardstheirqualifyingservice.However,thereisnodiscussion onthisissueandithasbeendecidedonly onthebasisoftheprevious judgmentsofthePunjabandHaryanaHighCourt. 43. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Secretary,

StateofKarnatakaandothersversusUmaDevi(3)andothers,(2006)4 SCC1,heldasfollows:
49. It is contended that the State action in not regularizingtheemployeeswasnotfairwithin theframeworkoftheruleoflaw.Theruleof lawcompelstheStatetomakeappointmentsas

:21:
envisaged by the Constitution and in the manner we haveindicatedearlier.Inmostofthesecases,nodoubt, theemployeeshadworkedforsomelengthoftimebut this has also been brought about by the pendency of proceedings in tribunals and courts initiated at the instance of the employees. Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment and that would be a negationoftheconstitutionalschemeadoptedbyus,the peopleofIndia.Itistherefore,notpossibletoacceptthe argument that there must be a direction to make permanent all the persons employed on daily wages. Whenthecourtisapproachedforreliefbywayofawrit, thecourthasnecessarilytoaskitselfwhethertheperson beforeithadanylegalrighttobeenforced.Considered in the light of the very clear constitutional scheme, it cannot be said that the employees have been able to establish a legal right to be made permanent even thoughtheyhaveneverbeenappointedintermsofthe relevantrulesorinadherenceofArticles14and16ofthe Constitution. 50.ItisarguedthatinacountrylikeIndiawherethereis so much poverty and unemployment and there is no equalityofbargainingpower,theactionoftheStatein not making the employees permanent, would be violativeofArticle21oftheConstitution.Butthevery argumentindicatesthattherearesomanywaitingfor employment and an equal opportunity for competing for employment and it is in that context that the Constitution as one of its basic features, has included Articles 14, 16 and 309 so as to ensure that public employment is given only in a fair and equitable manner by giving all those who are qualified, an opportunity to seek employment. In the guise of upholdingrightsunderArticle21oftheConstitution,a setofpersonscannotbepreferredoveravastmajorityof peoplewaitingforanopportunitytocompeteforState employment.Theacceptanceoftheargumentonbehalf oftherespondentswouldreallynegatetherightsofthe others conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution, assumingthatweareinapositiontoholdthattheright to employment is also a right coming within the purviewofArticle21oftheconstitution.Theargument thatArticle23oftheConstitutionisbreachedbecause the employment on daily wages amounts to forced labour, cannot be accepted. After all, the employees acceptedtheemploymentattheirownvolitionandwith eyes open as to the nature of their employment. The Governmentsalsorevisedtheminimumwagespayable from time to time in the light of all relevant circumstances.Italsoappearstousthatimportingof thesetheoriestodefeatthebasicrequirementofpublic employment would defeat the constitutional scheme andtheconstitutionalgoalofequality.

:22:
51.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 52.Normally,whatissoughtforbysuchtemporary employeeswhentheyapproachthecourt,istheissue ofawritofmandamusdirectingtheemployer,the State or its instrumentalities, to absorb them in permanentserviceortoallowthemtocontinue.In this context, the question arises whether a mandamus could be issued in favour of such persons.Atthisjuncture,itwillbepropertoreferto thedecisionoftheConstitutionBenchofthisCourt inRaiShivendraBahadur(Dr.)Vs.GoverningBody of the Nalanda College. That case arose out of a refusaltopromotethewritpetitionerthereinasthe Principalofacollege.ThisCourtheldthatinorder that a mandamus may issue to compel the authoritiestodosomething,itmustbeshownthat the statute imposes a legal duty on the authority andtheaggrievedpartyhadalegalrightunderthe statuteorruletoenforceit.Thisclassicalposition continuesandamandamuscouldnotbeissuedin favouroftheemployeesdirectingtheGovernmentto makethempermanentsincetheemployeescannot showthattheyhaveanenforceablelegalrighttobe permanentlyabsorbedorthattheStatehasalegal dutytomakethempermanent.

44.

TheSupremeCourtin Principal,MeharChandPolytechnic

and another versus Anu Lamba and others, (2006) 7 SCC 161, while dealing with the questions whether the courts had any jurisdiction to directregularizationoftheemployeeswhohadbeencontinuingforlong heldasfollows:
35.Therespondentsdidnothavelegalrighttobe absorbedinservice.Theywereappointedpurelyon temporarybasis.Ithasnotbeenshownbythemthat priortotheirappointments,therequirementsofthe provisionsofArticles14and16oftheConstitution hadbeencompliedwith.Admittedly,theredidnot existanysanctionedpost.TheProjectundertakenby the Union of India although continued for some timewasinitiallyintendedtobeatimeboundone. Itwasnotmeantforgeneratingemployment.Itwas meant for providing technical education to the agriculturalists.Intheabsenceofanylegalrightin the respondents, the High Court, thus, in our consideredview,couldnothaveissuedawritoforin thenatureofmandamus.

:23: Whether Court can direct regularization of an employee from an anteriordateonlywithaviewtomakehimentitledtopensiondehors therules. 45. Fromaperusaloftheaforesaidjudgments,itisapparentthat

thelawhasundergoneseachangeinthelasttwodecades.TheApexCourt has clearly laid down that the court cannot order the permanent absorption of daily rated employees unless a sanctioned post is in existence. Even if a sanctioned post exists, it must be shown that the petitionerwasinitiallyappointedinaccordancewithlawandbackdoor entrantscannotbegivenbenefitofregularization.Inthepresentcaseswe are mainly concerned with the employees who have already been regularizedintermsofapolicyplacedbeforeandapprovedbytheApex CourtinMoolRajUpadhyayascase,supra.Theregularizationhastobein termsofthesaidpolicy, i.e.aftercompletionof10 yearsofcontinuous serviceondailyratedbasis.Thispolicycontinuestoexistandholdsthe fieldtilldate,thoughtheperiodof10yearswasreducedto9yearsand thento8years. 46. Inanumberofcaseswheretheworkmenhadbeenemployed

muchpriortotheyear1994,thelearnedtribunalonthebasisof Shakuntla Devisjudgmenthasdirectedthattheyberegularizedaftercompleting10 years for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. We are of the considered view that these directions could not be given. The regularization/placingoftheworkmenonworkchargebasiswasordered by the Apex Courtonlyfrom1.1.1994.Thelearned tribunal could nothavepassedordersdirectingtheservicestoberegularizedfrom adatepriorto1.1.1994evenforthepurposesofpension.Thesedirections wouldbetotallycontrarytothedecisionoftheApexCourtin MoolRajUpadhyaya'scaseandalsotheschemeof

:24: regularizationspecificallyapprovedbytheApexCourtinthatcase. We, therefore,holdthatearliestregularizationcouldonlybew.e.f.1.1.1994and that too only on completing of 10 years continuous service with a minimum240daysserviceineachcalendaryear. 47. TheApexCourtinUnionofIndiaandothersversusRakesh

Kumar suprahasalsoclearlyheldthatthepensionarybenefitcannotbe granteddehorsthestatutoryrules.Ithasbeenlaiddowninunambiguous termsthatthecourtscannotdirectpaymentofpensiononthegroundof socalledhardship.AperusalofRule2(b)and2(c)ofthepensionRules clearlyshowsthattherulesdonotapplytopersonsincasualanddaily ratedemploymentandpersonspaidfromcontingencies.Nodoubt,Rule 13 provides that the qualifying service of a government servant shall commencefromthedatehetakeschargeoftheposttowhichheisfirst appointedeithersubstantiallyorinofficiatingortemporarycapacity.The contentionofthepetitionersisthatthephraseofficiatingortemporary capacityshallincludetheappointmentondailywagesalso.Weareafraid that we cannot accept this contention. Temporary service cannot be equated with service rendered on daily wages. We are aware that judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Delhi High Courtaretothe contrary. However,aspointedoutabove,thesecourts havenottakenintoconsiderationthespecificexclusionunderrule2(b) and2(c)ofthePensionRules.InKesarChandscase,aFullBenchofthe Punjab and Haryana High Court was only dealing with the service renderedonworkchargebasis.Thisserviceisbeingcountedforpurposes ofpensionbytheStateofHimachalPradesh.However,thelaterjudgments ofthePunjabandHaryanaHighCourthaveappliedthe

:25:
judgmentinKesarChandscase incasesofdailywagersalso,butwithout takingnoteofthespecificexclusionunderRule2(b)and2(c)ofthePension Rules.WeareoftheviewthatRule13onlycontemplatesthecountingof service which has been rendered after appointment on substantial, officiatingortemporarycapacity.Thispresupposesthatappointmentisin termsoftherulesliketheTemporaryCivilServiceRules.Dailywagershave beenspecificallyexcludedandonareadingoftheRules,itcannotbesaid that the wordsofficiating and temporary capacity cover the employees engagedoncasualdailyratedbasis. 48. Evenpreviously,wehadheldthattheemployeeswouldnot

have been entitled to pension but for the issuance of the Office Memorandum,dated14thMay,1968,itwasonlybytakingintoaccountthis memorandumthatwehadgivenbenefittotheemployeesofcounting50% oftheservicerenderedondailywages.
th WhethertheOfficeMemorandumNo.F.12(1)E.V/68,dated14 May,1968 isnolongerinforce.

49.

Themain questionraisedbeforeusbytheState isthatthis

OfficeMemorandumisnolongerinforce.Aspointedoutabovebeforethe ApexCourtandinitiallyevenbeforethisCourt,themainargumentwasthat theStateofHimachalPradeshhadnotadoptedtheOfficeMemorandum.As discussedabove,sincetheStatewasaUnionTerritory,itwasnotnecessary toadoptthisOfficeMemorandum,whichautomaticallybecameapplicable totheStateofHimachalPradesh. On30th March,1974,theStateissueda notification, which we have quoted in extenso hereinabove. Under this notification,boththePensionChapteroftheCivilServiceRegulationsas wellastheCentralCivilService(Pension)Rules,1972(hereinafterreferredto
asthePensionRulesof1972)weremadeapplicabletotheStateofHimachal

:26: PradeshandweredeemedtobeinforceinHimachalPradeshduringthis period. 50. Onbehalfoftheemployees,itisurgedthatsinceboththe

PensionChapteroftheCivilServiceRegulationsaswellastheCentralCivil Service (Pension) Rules have been made applicable in the State of HimachalPradesh,Rule89ofthePensionRules,whichistherepealing clause,willhavenoeffectontheapplicabilityofthePensionChapterofthe CivilServiceRegulations. 51. Thiscontentionhasnomeritwhatsoever.HimachalPradesh

became a State on 25th January, 1971. The Civil Service Regulations includingthePensionChaptercontinuedtoapplyintheStateofHimachal PradeshintermsofSection49oftheStateofHimachalPradeshAct.The Stateinbetweendecidedtogiveanoptiontotheemployeestoeitheropt fortheCentralRulesorthePunjabRules.Itlaterondecidedtowithdraw this decision and made the Central Rules applicable. When the notificationwasissuedintheyear1974,thePensionRulesof1972were specificallymadeapplicabletotheStateofHimachalPradesh.Rule89(1) of the Pension Rules, quoted hereinabove, which is the repealing rule, clearlylaysdownthatafterthecommencementoftheRules,everyrule, regulation or order including the Office Memorandum in force immediately before the commencement of the 1972 Rules would be repealedinsofarasthematteraredealtwithundertheRulesof1972. 52. The contention made on behalf of the employees that the

PensionChapteroftheCivilServiceRegulationscontinuestobein forceaftertheenforcementofthePensionRulesof1972cannot beaccepted.Rulesof1972wereenforcedbytheCentralGovernment

:27: w.e.f.1st June1972. Thiswouldmeanthatfrom25th January,1971till31st May, 1972, the Pension Chapter of the Civil Service Regulations would continuetobeinforceandthereafter,thePensionRulescameintoforce. 53. IntheStateofHimachalPradeshthoughtheRulesweremade

effectivefromapreviousdate,evenifweweretoacceptthepleathatthe rulescannotbegivenretrospectiveeffectiftheytakeawaytherightsofthe parties,thenalsow.e.f.30thMarch,1974,whenthenotificationinquestion was issued, the Pension Rules of 1972 would come into effect and the Pension Chapter of the Civil Service Regulations will cease to have any effectwhatsoever. 54. TheexplanationgivenbytheStateisthatitwasnecessaryto

adopt both the rules simultaneously so that the employees would be governedbythePensionChapteroftheCivilServiceRegulationsfrom25th January,1971to31stMay,1972andthereafter,bythePensionRulesof1972. Thisexplanationisreasonableandmustbeaccepted.Therecannotbetwo setsofrulesgoverningthesamefield,especiallywhentheemployeeshave notbeengivenanoptionbetweenthetworules.Thelatterrules,i.e.the PensionRules,specificallyrepealtheearlierrulesand,therefore,fromthe date whenthe latter rules came intoforce, earlier ruleswould cease to exist. Inthesecases,whetherthelatterrulesaregiveneffecttofrom1st June,1972orfrom30thMarch,1974willhavenoimpactonthedecisionof thesecasessincealltheemployeesrenderedserviceafter1974. 55. The relevant portion of the affidavit filed by the Special

Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh reads as follows:

:28:
Moreover, Rule 89 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, clearly envisages that on the commencementoftheserules,everyrule,regulationor other including Office Memorandum (hereinafter referred to in this rule as the old rule) in force immediatelybeforesuchcommencementshallinsofar asitprovidesforanyofthematterscontainedinthese rules,ceasetooperate.Meaningtherebytheprovisions containedunderPensionChapteroftheCivilService Regulations(CSR)i.e.OldRulesstandsrepealedafter the commencement of the Central Civil Service (Pension)Rules,1972from1.6.1972. Therefore,eveniftheGovt.ofIndia'sO.M.F.N12(1)E.V/ 68dated14.5.1968hadbeenappearingbelowarticle 368oftheCivilServiceRegulation(CSR),itceasedto operatealongwitholdrulesi.e.PensionChapterofthe CivilServiceRegulation(CSR)from1.6.1972i.e.from the commencement of the Central Civil Service (Pension)Rules,1972. ItisspecificallymentionedthatthepurposeoftheState GovernmenttoadoptthePensionChapteroftheCivil ServiceRegulations(CSR)videNotificationNo.24/71 Fin(reg)IIdated30.03.1974wasonlytofacilitatethe regulation of pension cases of Govt. servants in positionandretiredfromserviceonorbefore31.5.1972 under the old provisions of Pension Chapter of Civil ServiceRegulations(CSR).

We are of the considered view that at least after 30th March, 1974, the employeeoftheGovernmentaregovernedonlybythePensionRulesof 1972. Whether the Office Memorandum is saved in terms of Rule 89 of the PensionRules,1972. 56. Thenextargumentraisedonbehalfoftheemployeesis

thattherepealingclausedoesnotdealwiththematterrelatingtocounting the service rendered on daily wages by the employees. It is strenuouslycontendedonbehalfoftheemployeesthatRule89of thePensionRulesdoesnotrepealthosememorandawhicharenotdealt withintheRulesof1972.Therefore,accordingtothelearnedcounsel fortheemployees,theOfficeMemorandumwhichdehorsoftheRules

:29: continuestobeinforce. Thisargumentonfirstblushmayseemtobe attractivebutoncloserscrutinyandanalysis,weareunabletoagreewith thelearnedcounselfortheemployees. 57. Toappreciatethiscontention,wewouldagainrefertoRules

13 and 14 of the Pension Rules. Rule 13 lays down that the qualifying serviceofagovernmentservantshallstartfromthedatehetakeschargeof theposttowhichheisappointedeithersubstantivelyorinofficiatingor temporarycapacity,incasetheofficiatingortemporaryserviceisfollowed withoutinterruptionbysubstantiveappointment. Asalreadyheldbyus above, the appointment on daily wage service cannot be termed to be appointmentinanofficiatingoratemporarycapacity. Apersonwhois appointedonofficiatingortemporarybasisholdsacivilpostwhereasa dailywagerdoesnotholdacivilpost. 58. Atthesametime,wemustaddthatRule13issubjecttothe

otherprovisionsofthePensionRulesandRule14would,therefore,govern thecountingofqualifyingservice. UnderSubrule2ofRule14,'service' has been defined to mean service under the Government but does not includeserviceinanonpensionableestablishmentunlesssuchserviceis treatedasqualifyingservicebythatGovernment. 59. Aspointedoutabove,Rule2ofthePensionRulesspecifically

providethattherulewouldnotapplytopersonsincasualanddailyrated appointment. Therecanbenomannerofdoubtthatdailywagersand casual employees work in a nonpensionable establishment. The only question is whether the Government has taken a conscious decision to treatthisservicerenderedondailyratedandcasualbasistobequalifying service.

:30: 60. Onbehalfoftheemployees,itiscontendedthattheOffice

Memorandum,dated14thMay,1968,issuedunderRule368isadecisionof the Government to treat 50% service of daily waged employees as qualifyingservice.Ontheotherhand,itiscontendedonbehalfoftheState thatwhatSubrule2ofRule14postulatesisaconsciousdecisiontakenby theGovernmentafterframingoftherules. 61. Atthisstage,wewouldalsoliketopointoutthatunderRule2

inadditiontocasualanddailyratedemployees,manyotherGovernment servants, such as railway servants, persons paid from contingencies, personsentitledtocontributoryfunds,personsemployedoncontractare excludedfromtheapplicationoftherules. 62. Earlier,thePensionChapteroftheCivilServiceRegulations

dealtwiththeissueofgrantofpensiontotheemployeesoftheCentral Government. The employees entitled to pension were specifically mentionedinRegulation352. Certaincategoriesoftheemployeeswere notpermittedtogetpension. Theseweremainlyemployeesorofficers employedforlimitedtimeordutyorevenofficerswhoseservicescouldbe discharged on one month's notice. Regulation 368 of the Civil Service Regulations,whichcorrespondstoRules13and14ofthe1972Rules,reads asfollows:
368.Servicedoesnotqualifyunlesstheofficerholdsa substantiveofficeonapermanentestablishment. Provided that in the case of an officer retiring from serviceonorafterthe22ndApril1960;ifhewasholding asubstantiveofficeonapermanentestablishmenton the date of his retirement, temporary or officiating service under the Government of India, followed withoutinterruptionbyconfirmationinthesameor anotherpost,shallcountinfullasqualifyingservice exceptinrespectof (i) Periods of temporary or officiating service in nonpensionableestablishment;

:31:
(ii) periodsofcasualordailyratedserviceand (iii)periodsofservicepaidfromcontingencies.

63.

Thus,undertheCivilServiceRegulations,periodsofcasualor

dailyratedservicesandperiodofservicepaidfromcontingencieswerenot to be taken into consideration for counting the qualifying service. The OfficeMemorandum,referredtoabove,wasissuedunderthisregulation andasperthisOfficeMemorandum,theGovernmenthaddecidedthat 50% of the service rendered by the employees paid from contingencies shouldbeallowedtobecountedtowardsthepension.Relyinguponthis Office Memorandum, we had, in our earlier judgment, held that no discrimination could be made between the service rendered on daily wagesorservicerenderedbytheemployeesandpaidfromcontingencies and had, therefore, come to the conclusion that 50% of the service renderedondailywagesshouldbecountedforcalculatingthequalifying service. 64. Under CSR 372, service of apprentice did not qualify for

pensionexceptincertainspecifiedcases. AnOffice Memorandum was issuedon28thApril,1961/1stMay,1961,whereinitwasmadeclearthatthe servicerenderedbyaS.A.S.ApprenticeintheIndianAuditandAccounts Department or the Defence Accounts Departments will be treated as temporaryserviceandwouldcounttowardspension. 65. Rule16ofthePensionRulesof1972readsasfollows:
16.Countingofserviceasapprentice. Serviceasan apprenticeshallnotqualify,exceptinthecaseofSAS apprentice in the Indian Audit and Accounts DepartmentortheDefenceAccountsDepartment.

It is obvious that if the old Office Memorandum was to continue, as contendedonbehalfoftheemployees,thentherewasnoneedtoenact Rule16.

:32: 66. UnderCSR368,theGovernmenthadtakenanotherdecision

vide its memo, dated 16th February, 1959, whereby it was decided that contractofficers,whowereengagedoncontractandweresubsequently appointed to the same or a different post in a substantive capacity on pensionable post without interruption may be given the option of surrenderingthegovernmentcontributionoftheirContributoryProvident Fundstogetherwithinterestthereuponandthentheywouldbeentitledto countonehalfoftheircontractservicetowardspension. 67. Rule17ofthePensionRulesof1972readsasfollows:
17.Countingofserviceoncontract.(1)Apersonwho isinitiallyengagedbytheGovernmentonacontractfor aspecifiedperiodandissubsequentlyappointedtothe same or another post in a substantive capacity in a pensionableestablishmentwithoutinterruptionofduty, mayopteither (a) to retain the Government contribution in the Contributory Provident Fund with interest thereon including any other compensation for thatservice;or (b) to agree to refund to the Government the monetarybenefitsreferredtoinClause(a)orto forgothesameiftheyhavenotbeenpaidtohim andcountinlieuthereoftheserviceforwhich theaforesaidmonetarybenefitsmayhavebeen payable. (2) The option under subrule (1) shall be communicatedtotheHeadofofficeunderintimationto the Accounts Officer within a period of three months fromthedateofissueoftheorderofpermanenttransfer topensionableservice,oriftheGovernmentservantis onleaveonthatday,withinthreemonthsofhisreturn fromleave,whicheverislater. (3) If no communication is received by the Head of Officewithintheperiodreferredtoinsubrule(2),the Governmentservantshallbedeemedtohaveoptedfor theretentionofthemonetarybenefitspayableorpaidto himonaccountofservicerenderedoncontract.

:33: This also provides for counting of service on contract for purposes of calculatingthequalifyingservice. 68. CSR380providedthatapressservant,whowaspaidonpiece

workbasis,wouldbetreatedtobeholdingasubstantiveofficeifhewas employednotcasually,butasamemberoffixedestablishmentforaperiod ofatleast72monthsuninterruptedly.Thereisnocorrespondingrulein theRulesof1972. WouldthatmeanthatevenundertheRulesof1972, sucha personwouldbeentitledtocounthisserviceforthepurposeof pension? We are of the opinion that this cannot be the interpretation becausetherulemakingauthoritybeforeframingthenewrulesmustbe presumedtobeawareabouttheoldrules. 69. Similarly,underCSR381,itwasprovidedthatcertainservice

rendered by officers engaged in Settlement and Surveys Departments would qualify for pension whereas there is no corresponding provision underthenewRules. Therearealotofotherrules/officememorandum undertheCSR,someofwhichhavebeenincorporatedinthenewrules andsomehavenotbeenincorporatedinthenewrules. 70. Whenthe1972Rules,whicharetheRuleswithinthemeaning

ofArticle309oftheConstitutionofIndia,wereframed,theauthoritiestook into consideration a large number of issues covered by the Office Memorandum, which were issued under the Civil Service Regulations. Some of the memoranda were incorporated in the new Rules and some were not. At this stage, we may point out that even in theprintedversionsofthebook,exceptforreferencetotheOffice

:34: Memorandum,dated14th May,1968,wecouldnotfindreferencetoany othermemorandumissuedundertheCivilServiceRegulations. 71. If we accept the submission made on behalf of the

employees, the result would be that the new rules would apply and wherever the new rules are silent, the Civil Service Regulations would apply. Weareafraidthatthisisnotthemeaningoftherepealingclause. WhenwereadtherepealingRule89,thewordsinsofarasitprovidesfor any of the matters contained in these rules has to be given a wider meaning.Theexpression'providesforanyofthematters',cannot,inour opinion,beinterpretedinamannerascontendedbytheemployees.This expressionhastobegivenawidermeaning.Nodoubt,underRule14of the 1972 Rules, the Government has the power to even count service renderedinanonpensionableestablishmentforpurposesofpension,but itwouldberequiredtoissuespecificordersinthisbehalf.'Matters'must be read to mean the larger issues and not each and every individual memorandum which was issued. If the State, after taking into consideration these powers, as pointed out by us above, has granted pension to certain categories of employees in nonpensionable establishments, but the rules are silent with regard to other categories, which were similarly treated under the CSR Regulations, then the only Interpretation possible is that the Government did not want to grant pensiontotheseemployees. Underthenewrules,theGovernmenthas made some employees working in nonpensionable establishments entitledtopension,suchascontractemployees,apprenticesetc.However, thishasbeendonebyspecificallymakingaprovisionintheRules.

:35:
72. Atthecostofrepetition,wemaystatethatunderRule2,daily

ratedandcasualemployeeswerespecificallyexcludedbytheRules.Rule14 doesempowertheGovernmenttoincludetheserviceonanonpensionable establishment,butsomespecificorderswererequiredtobepassed. When theoldruleswererepealed,theOfficeMemorandumwentwiththerepealed rules. 73. Aspointedoutabove,incertaincases,theGovernment,while

framing the rules, included the persons, such as contract employees, probationers,apprentices,inthenewrules,butwhereitdidnotdoso,the intentionoftherulemakingauthoritywasclearthatthebenefitwastobe giventoonlythosecategoriesofemployees,whowerespecificallyincludedin theRulesandnottoothers. Nonotificationaftertheissuanceofthe1972 RuleshasbeenbroughttoournoticewherebytheGovernmenthastakena conscious decision to count the service of daily waged employees for the purposesofpension.
74. Itwascontendedonbehalfoftheemployeesthatiftwoviews

arepossible,thentheviewfavouringtheemployeesshouldbetaken.Wehave noquarrelwiththisproposition,butinthiscase,weareoftheconsidered viewthattheviewcanvassedonbehalfoftheemployeesisnotapossibleview afterwetakeintoconsiderationRule89.IftheRulesdonotenvisagecounting ofdailywageservicetowardsqualifyingserviceforpension,thisCourtcannot, by judicial fiat, direct that the daily wage service must be taken into considerationwhilecalculatingthequalifyingserviceintermsofthePension Rules. When we had delivered our earlier judgment, the State had not questioned the enforceability of the Office Memorandum, dated 14th May, 1968,buthadonlycontendedthatthisOfficeMemorandumdidnotapply

:36: todaily wagers. Now,the contention isthatthe Memorandum stands repealedandweareoftheconsideredviewthatforthereasonsgiven hereinabovethatthecontentionoftheStateappearstobecorrectandthis OfficeMemorandumceasedtooperateafterthepromulgationoftheRules of1972. 75. Oneothercontentiononbehalfoftheemployeesisthatinan

OfficeMemorandum,dated10thMarch,1986,referencehasbeenmadeto theearlierOfficeMemorandum,dated14thMay,1968.Wedonotthinkthat thiswouldbesufficienttoholdthattheOfficeMemorandum,dated14 th May,1968,stillholdsthefield. 76. WemayalsonoteacontentionraisedonbehalfoftheState

thatsincetheemployeeshadclaimedpensioninMoolRajUpadhayaya's case and the Apex Court approved a scheme wherein there was no reference to such pension, it should be presumed that the Apex Court refused this prayer of the employees. We are unable to accept this argumentputforthbythe learned Advocate General. The judgment in Mool Raj Upadhayaya's case has only approved the scheme of regularization/grantofworkchargestatustotheemployeesandtherewas nooccasionfortheApexCourttodecidethequestionwhethertheservice renderedondailywagesshouldbecountedtowardsqualifyingserviceor not. 77. Inviewoftheabovediscussion,weareoftheconsideredview

thatthePensionChapteroftheCivilServiceRegulations,whichgoverned theemployeesearlier,stoodrepealedaftertheenforcementoftheCentral Civil Service(Pension)Rules,1972andthesavingsportionofRule89of the1972RulesdoesnotsavetheOfficeMemorandumNo.F.12(1)E.V/68,

:37: dated14thMay,1968.Consequently,weanswerthequestionframedbyus earlierbyholdingthattheservicerenderedondailywagedbasisbythe employeesbeforetheirregularization/grantofworkchargedstatuscannot betakenintoconsiderationforcountingtheirqualifyingserviceforgrant ofpensionundertheCentralCivilServices(Pension)Rules,1972.Thewrit petitionisdisposedofintheaforesaidterms.

(DeepakGupta) Judge

(V.K.Ahuja) Judge May31,2012 (rajni)