The Himachal Pradesh High Court has ruled that an employee is not entitled to receive a pension based on temporary duties performed in a higher post shortly before retirement. The Court emphasized that pension benefits must be determined by the actual, substantive post held—not by temporary assignments to higher roles.
This decision came from Justice Ajay Mohan Goel while hearing a contempt petition filed by Bishan Singh Chandel. The petitioner had alleged that Himachal Pradesh University disobeyed a previous court direction by not calculating his pension based on his last-drawn salary while working as a Planning & Development Officer.
“This may lead to a situation wherein any person on the verge of superannuation can be asked to perform duties of a higher post for a day or two and then demand pension based on the higher pay. This defeats the very purpose of promotion,” the judge remarked.
Background of the Case:
Bishan Singh Chandel, who retired on March 31, 2015, had filed a writ petition in 2019 seeking retrospective promotion as Planning & Development Officer from September 1, 2014. Although the court rejected the plea for backdated promotion, it directed the university to pay him salary and allowances along with “consequential benefits” for the period during which he had performed those duties—from November 12, 2014, to March 31, 2015.
Read Also:- Encroacher Cannot Seek Injunction Against True Landowner, Reiterates Himachal Pradesh High Court
Following the court’s decision, Chandel approached the court again through a contempt petition, arguing that “consequential benefits” should include pension calculated on the salary he drew while performing higher duties.
He relied on CCS (Pension) Rule 49(2), which states that pension should be based on the average of the last 10 months’ salary or the last drawn salary, whichever is more beneficial. He contended that this justified his claim for a higher pension.
Court’s Observations:
The court, however, clarified that the term “consequential benefits” used in the earlier judgment referred only to compensation for the duties performed during that time and did not include a directive to calculate pension based on a temporary position.
“No direction was issued or can be implied that the pension must be calculated based on the salary of Planning & Development Officer,” the court stated.
The judge further pointed out that accepting the petitioner’s argument would open the door for misuse. Employees nearing retirement could be temporarily placed in higher posts, perform duties briefly, and then claim inflated pensions—undermining the very basis of structured promotions.
The court noted that the university had already complied with the original order by releasing pay and allowances for the period the petitioner served in the higher role. Since there was no evidence of willful disobedience of the court’s previous ruling, the contempt petition was dismissed.
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.
