Higher Pension Cannot Be Granted Based On Duties Performed Temporarily: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Justice Ajay Mohan Goel : It may lead to a situation wherein any person on the verge of superannuation can be ordered or otherwise called upon to perform the duties of a higher post and after rendering such duties for 72 hours, 48 hours and 24 hours as the case may be and thereafter, such an incumbent shall be demanding pension on the basis of the pay of the higher post, duties whereof were being performed by him, when he superannuated. This defeats the very purpose of promotion etc.

Background Facts:

The petitioner, Bishan Singh Chandel, filed a contempt petition against the respondent, alleging willful disobedience of the directions issued by the court while deciding a writ petition filed by the petitioner in 2019.

In that writ petition, the petitioner had sought retrospective promotion to the post of Planning & Development Officer w.e.f. 01.09.2014, claiming that he had served in the post from 12.11.2014 to 31.03.2015.

The petitioner's request for retrospective promotion was denied. However, Himachal Pradesh University was directed to release pay and allowances, along with consequential benefits, for the petitioner's service as Planning & Development Officer during the specified period.

The petitioner submitted that he retired from the post of Planning & Development Officer on 31.03.2015. However, despite the court's direction, the pension being paid to him was not based on his last drawn salary, but on the substantive post held by him. He further claimed that he was not being granted all the consequential benefits for his service.

He also referred to CCS (Pension) Rule 49 (2), which states that the pension should be calculated based on the average salary of employee during the last 10 months of service or based on the last pay drawn, whichever is more beneficial to the employee. Therefore, he contended, that the pension should be calculated based on the salary drawn by him at the time of retirement.

Findings:

The court held that while deciding the writ petition, the respondent was directed to pay the petitioner allowances and consequential benefits for discharging the duties of Planning & Development Officer for the period from 12.11.2014 to 31.03.2015. However, no direction was issued to calculate the pension based on post held at the time of retirement.

The court clarified that the term “consequential benefits” referred solely to compensation for the duties performed, and did not imply any change in pension calculation.

Based on the above, the court opined that accepting the petitioner's contention would set a problematic precedent, enabling any employee nearing retirement to temporarily occupy higher posts and then claim pension benefits without a formal promotion. This, the Court reiterated, would undermine the very structure of the promotion system.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the contempt petition, holding that there was no willful disobedience of the Court's earlier order by the university.

Case Name: Bishan Singh Chandel v/s Sh. Balwan Chand and another

Case No.: COPC No. 197 of 2022

Date of Decision: 02.05.2025

For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.2-State.

Click here to download order/judgment