Sandeep Sharma,J. - (1.)By way of present petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to quash the communication dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure A-3), whereby request has been made to respondent No.1 to stop the pension of the petitioner as sanctioned against PPO No. 111165707.
(2.)For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for proper adjudication of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Ayurveda Medical Officer on ad- hoc basis vide communication dated 23.1.1999 (Annexure P-1). Perusal of aforesaid communication itself suggests that 50 Ayurvedic doctors including petitioner were ordered to be appointed as Ayurvedic Medical Officer Grade-II on ad-hoc basis in the scale of Rs. 7,000-10,980/- on the recommendation of departmental selection committee of the Government. It is not in dispute that subsequently, petitioner, who is named at Sr. No. 45 of the notification referred herein above, was posted as Ayurvedic Medical Officer at Ayurveda Dispensary Kanda in Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla. It is also not in dispute that services of the petitioner were regularized on 25.11.2006 as is evident from the perusal of Annexure P-3. Petitioner after having successfully completed his normal tenure of service superannuated on 31.12.2011, whereafter respondent No.1 issued pension payment order in favour of the petitioner authorizing him to have benefits of pension after his superannuation from the directorate of Ayurveda.
(3.)It is not in dispute that since 31.12.2011, petitioner was in receipt of pension till the issuance of communication dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-3), whereby District Ayurvedic Officer, Bilaspur, requested the Accountant General (respondent No.1) to stop the pension of the petitioner. In the aforesaid communication, District Ayurvedic Officer has stated that as per Government of Himachal Pradesh Finance (Pension) Department vide notification No. Fin.(Pen)A(3)-1/96 dated 17.8.2006, employees appointed on regular basis after 15.5.2003, are entitled only to Contributory Pension Scheme and not entitled to pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. In the aforesaid communication, District Ayurvedic Officer, Bilaspur further apprised respondent No.1 that service of the petitioner, who stood retired on 31.12.2011, was regularized on 25.11.2006 vide government notification No. Ayur Kha(2)-4/90-Loose dated 25.11.2006 and as such, petitioner is not entitled to pension under CCS Rules, 1972. District Ayurvedic Officer further stated in the aforesaid communication that pension case of the above officer was sent by mistake. Taking cognizance of aforesaid communication sent by the District Ayurvedic Officer, respondent No.1 stopped the pension of the petitioner. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for quashing of communication dated 11.10.2019.
;