Introduction
In a significant judgment dated April 25, 2024, the Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed the issue of whether temporary assignment to a higher post before retirement qualifies an employee for a higher pension. The court held that pension benefits are to be granted based on the substantive post held by an employee, not on temporary assignments to higher posts. This decision has implications for public service employment and pension calculations.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Bishan Singh Chandel, filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a previous court order. In 2019, he had sought retrospective promotion to the post of Planning & Development Officer from September 1, 2014, claiming he served in that role from November 12, 2014, to March 31, 2015. Although his request for retrospective promotion was denied, the court directed Himachal Pradesh University to release pay and allowances, along with consequential benefits, for his service during the specified period.
Chandel retired on March 31, 2015, from the post of Planning & Development Officer. However, he contended that his pension was calculated based on his substantive post, not the higher post he held temporarily before retirement. He argued that under CCS (Pension) Rule 49(2), pension should be calculated based on the average salary during the last 10 months of service or the last pay drawn, whichever is more beneficial.
Court's Observations and Rationale
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel observed that granting higher pension based on temporary assignments could lead to situations where employees are assigned higher duties shortly before retirement to secure increased pension benefits. He emphasized that such practices defeat the purpose of promotions and the structured hierarchy within public service.
The court clarified that while the petitioner was entitled to pay and allowances for the period he served as Planning & Development Officer, there was no direction to calculate his pension based on that temporary assignment. The term "consequential benefits" was interpreted to mean benefits directly related to the temporary service, not an elevation in pension entitlement.
Implications for Pension Calculations
This judgment reinforces the principle that pension benefits should be based on the substantive post held by an employee, not on temporary or officiating assignments. It underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the promotion system and prevents potential manipulation of pension calculations through short-term assignments to higher posts.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision provides clarity on the calculation of pension benefits concerning temporary assignments. By ruling that temporary duties do not entitle an employee to a higher pension, the court upholds the principles of fairness and integrity within the public service system. This judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases and guides public institutions in their pension-related decisions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.