2015 (6) TMI 1225 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment in the post of teacher - Vidya Upasak Yojna - case of petitioners is that the respondents have not counted the services rendered by the petitioners from their initial date of appointment towards pension and increments - HELD THAT - The petitioners have been appointed before 15.5.2003 and are entitled to pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General that the appointments of the petitioners would be reckoned from the date of their regularization/absorption on 31.10.2007 and 22.11.2007. There is not even a single day break in the service of the petitioners and they have fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the Vidya Upasak Yojna as well as in their appointments letters. Respondent-State is a welfare State. The services rendered by the petitioners from the years 2000 to 2007 cannot be obliterated or rendered otiose. Petitioners were not entitled to the regular pay scale at par with regularly appointees but they are entitled at least to count this period from the years 2000 to 2007 towards annual increments as well as qualifying service for pension. Action of the respondents of not counting the period from 2000 to 2007 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and annual increments is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is made clear that the petitioners are entitled to count this period towards pensionary benefits as well as annual increments. The period from 2000 to 31.10.2007 and 22.11.2007, respectively shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. This period shall also be counted for the purpose of annual increments - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of rules for pension entitlement for teachers appointed under the Vidya Upasak Yojna in Himachal Pradesh.

Analysis:
The Himachal Pradesh Vidya Upasak Yojna was established to address the shortage of teachers in remote areas, aiming to improve educational standards. The scheme required appointing Vidya Upasaks with specific qualifications and training, with the goal of eventually regularizing their positions. The selection process involved a written test and interview conducted by the H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board. Candidates were appointed based on merit, and those selected underwent training before being absorbed into regular teaching positions.

The issue arose regarding the pension entitlement of teachers appointed under this scheme. A new clause inserted in the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 stated that appointments made in Himachal Pradesh after 15.5.2003 would not be eligible for pension under the existing rules. However, the petitioners in this case were appointed before this date, completed the required training, and were regularized in 2007. The contention was whether their service from the year 2000 to 2007 should be considered for pension benefits.

The court analyzed the rules governing pension entitlement for government servants, emphasizing that continuous service without interruption should be recognized for pension purposes. It was noted that the petitioners had fulfilled all conditions stipulated in the Vidya Upasak Yojna and their appointment letters. The court held that the petitioners, having been appointed before 15.5.2003 and meeting the necessary criteria, were entitled to pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Additionally, the court addressed the issue of annual increments and qualifying service for pension during the period from 2000 to 2007. The petitioners argued that despite being initially appointed on an honorarium basis, they performed duties equivalent to regular teachers and should have this period counted towards increments and pension benefits. The court agreed, ruling that this period should be considered as qualifying service for pension and annual increments, emphasizing the petitioners' dedication and service in remote areas where regular teachers were reluctant to serve.

In conclusion, the court allowed the petitions, directing that the period from 2000 to 31.10.2007 and 22.11.2007 be counted as qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court emphasized the importance of recognizing the service rendered by the petitioners and upheld their entitlement to pension benefits and annual increments for the specified period.