Disposed

Manjula Thakur v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2023CWP/5018/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple writ petitioners, retired Nursery Trained Teachers, complained that their due pension was withheld after service regularization. The court directed the Accountant General to sanction and dispatch pension pay orders within two weeks, ensuring payment to petitioners via District Treasury Officers within a further timeline.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Accountant General to sanction and dispatch Pension Pay Orders within two weeks and to DDOs/DTOs to ensure payment within two weeks of receipt.

Manjula Thakur Vs the State of Hp… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos. 4507 to 4509, 4511 to 4521, 5018,5072, 5926 to 5930, 5739, 5743, 6343 and 6444 of 2023

¶2

Decided on: 15.09.2023

¶3

1. CWP No.4507/2023 Sarita Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 2. CWP No.4508/2023 Sudesh Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 3. CWP No.4509/2023 Anju Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 4. CWP No.4511/2023 Kanta Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 5. CWP No.4512/2023 Gayatri Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 6. CWP No.4513/2023 Bidula Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 7. CWP No.4514/2023 Chander Kanta …Petitioner Versus

¶4

¶5

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 8. CWP No.4515/2023 Pushp Lata …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 9. CWP No.4516/2023 Neema Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 10. CWP No.4517/2023 Krishna Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 11. CWP No.4518/2023 Savitri Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 12. CWP No.4519/2023 Suresh Kumari …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 13. CWP No.4520/2023 Tripta Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 14. CWP No.4521/2023 Roshni Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 15. CWP No.5018/2023

¶6

¶7

Manjula Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 16. CWP No.5072/2023 Sunita Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 17. CWP No.5926/2023 Prem Lata Chauhan …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 18. CWP No.5927/2023 Sangeeta Malhotra …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 19. CWP No.5928/2023 Rajesh Bala …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 20. CWP No.5929/2023 Promila Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 21. CWP No.5930/2023 Sushma Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 22. CWP No.5739/2023 Asha Kumari …Petitioner Versus

¶8

¶9

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 23. CWP No.5743/2023 Chinta Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 24. CWP No.6343/2023 Sita Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. 25. CWP No.6444/2023 Sneh Lata …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶10

………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista and Mr. Lovneeesh Kanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, in the respective petitions. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate General, for the respondents/State. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for the respondents /Accountant General.

¶12

Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J

¶13

On the oral request made by learned counsel for the

¶14

petitioners, Accountant General (A&E) Himachal Pradesh, Shimla is

¶15

impleaded as respondent No.4 in the array of parties.

¶16

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶17

¶18

Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, respectively. 3. The case set up by the petitioners in these petitions are that they were engaged as Nursery Trained Teacher (NTT) in the respondent-department. On 02.02.1999, respondent-State decided to regularize the services of Nursery Trained Teacher (NTT) on completion of 5 years of service instead of 10 years. Transferred Application No.2828/2015 instituted by certain NTTs was decided by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal on 13.09.2018 directing the respondents-State to regularize the services of the petitioners therein on completion of 5 years of service. This decision was assailed by the respondents-State by filing CWP No.3544/2019. The writ petition was dismissed on 06.11.2020. The respondents-State thereafter set out to implement the decision in question. Office order dated 03.03.2022 was issued. The petitioners have been extended the benefit of the decision. Their services have been regularized with retrospective effect from different dates in different years. Revised seniority numbers have been issued to the petitioners. The petitioners now stand retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.

¶19

Petitioners’ grievance in the instant petitions is that till date the respondents have not released their due pension.

¶20

¶21

5. With similar prayer, CWP No.4986 of 2023 and other

¶22

connected matters (Savita Kumari Versus State of H.P. & Ors.) were filed, in which following order was passed on 06.09.2023:-

¶23

“3. ……………..When the matters were taken up on 03.08.2023, learned counsel for respondent No.4 i.e. Accountant General (A&E) Shimla, H.P. pointed out certain procedural difficulties on account of instructions of the Finance Department in releasing due and admissible pension to the petitioners. For ironing out the creases, Senior Officers of the concerned departments including the Finance and Education Departments attended the hearing of the case on 11.08.2023 and assured that all necessary action for releasing due and admissible monetary benefits to the petitioners would be taken by them. Following order was passed in the matter on 17.08.2023:-

¶24

“On 16.08.2023, learned Additional Advocate General had placed on record a copy of instruction memo dated 14.08.2023 issued by Director of Elementary Education inter alia stating as under:-

¶25

“In this context, it is submitted that the Finance Department has conveyed its clarification sought by the Accountant General (A&E), HP vide their letter No.Fin(C)B(15)-21/2020-Loose dated 11.08.2023 to the Deputy Accountant General (Pension) with request to finalized pension cases of NTT Teachers.

¶26

It is further submitted that all the Deputy Directors of Himachal Pradesh have also been directed vide letter dated 14.08.2023 (Copy Enclosed) to submit all pension cases pertaining to NTT Teachers to the O/o Accountant General, HP as per the clarification of the Finance Department and follow up these cases from the O/o Accountant General, H.P.”

¶27

2. The respondents/State had also placed on record a copy of office letter dated 11.08.2023 from the Finance

¶28

¶29

Department addressed to the office of Deputy Accountant General stating as under:-

¶30

“I am directed refer to your office letter no. Pen1/C/-1/ clarification/NTT/2023-21/528-29 dated 05.07.2023 on the subject cited above and to say that the Finance Department confirms that the following, advice had been accorded/conveyed to the AD (Education Department) in the matter of CWP No. 3544/2019 & COPCT No. 758/2020 titled as State of HP Vs. Surendra Sharma and others, on 11th May, 2023.

¶31

"Examined in the Finance Regulations Department. The CMM vide decision dated 20.12.2021 has already approved to implement the Court decision dated 13.09.2018 of the erstwhile HPAT rendered in the TA No 2828/2015 & decision dated 6.11.2020 of the Hon'ble High Court, rendered in CWP No. 3544/2019 in view of the Government letter dated 2.2.1999. The Law Department has also advised the A.D. to implement the court decisions vide N-7 to N-13 of the AD's notes.

¶32

Hence, to settle issue, until otherwise the department has grounds to contest the matter in the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Finance Department agrees to grant consequential benefits to the petitioners in aforesaid writ petitions as per directions passed in the Court decision. However, nonpetitioners can be granted benefits on notional basis in terms of Government letter dated 15.12.2011 read with letter dated 7.1.2012.

¶33

It is requested that AG Office may finalize pension cases of NTT as per above advice in accordance with orders of Hon’ble High Court. The same has been conveyed by Education Department, also to your goodself vide their letter dated June 2023.”

¶34

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 i.e. Accountant General (A&E) Shimla submit that all necessary action at the end of Accountant General’s office including sanctioning the PPOs as well as authorizing payment of

¶35

¶36

Pension & arrears of Pension shall be carried out within 10 days from today. The statement is taken note of.

¶37

4. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that within a week thereafter all monetary benefits due and admissible to the petitioners including the pension/arrears etc. will be credited in their respective bank accounts.

¶38

5. In light of above statements of learned counsel for the respondents, list on 06.09.2023 to oversee the compliance.”

¶39

4. Today, when the matters were taken up, Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 (A&E) Shimla, H.P. submitted that the cases of all these petitioners are under process in the office of Accountant General. Pension Pay Orders in cases of individual petitioners, in these petitions shall be sanctioned, prepared and dispatched within outer range of 2 weeks from today. Pension Pay Orders of all these petitioners shall be dispatched to the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDOs’), District Treasury Officers (DTOs’) as well as the petitioners latest by 25.09.2023. Their statements are taken on record.

¶40

5. Since respondent No.4 has now not only undertaken to sanction the PPO orders in favour of the petitioners but has also assured that the same shall be dispatched to all concerned quarters i.e. the concerned District Treasury Officers (DTOs), Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDOs) as well as to the petitioners in individual cases, there shall be direction to the concerned DTOs’ & DDOs’ through learned Law Officer to do the needful i.e. to take all necessary follow up action for releasing the due and admissible pension to all the petitioners in each of these cases within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of Pension Pay Order. The petitioners through their learned counsel are also directed to complete all requisite formalities, if any required at their end. The needful shall be done by them within the aforesaid time-line. Due & admissible pension be paid & released to the petitioners within the above period. These petitions are disposed of in above terms.

¶41

¶42

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.”

¶43

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that in the instant matters, pension cases of the petitioners, if not already sent, will be forwarded by respondents No.1 to 3 to respondent No.4 within two weeks from today. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, i.e. Accountant General, Himachal Pradesh, submits that the same exercise within the same timeline as is indicated in the decision rendered in Savita Kumari’s case, supra, shall be followed in the instant petitions as well.

¶44

Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that based upon the action taken by the office of respondent No.4, similar process as has been undertaken to be adopted by the respondents in Savita Kumari’s case, supra, shall be adopted by the concerned District Treasury Officers as well as the Drawing & Disbursing Officers.

¶45

The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms and also in light of observations & directions issued in Savita Kumari’s case, supra, which shall also be applicable to these petitions as well. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶46

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶47

15^th September, 2023(rohit)

Manjula Thakur v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula Thakur v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Traharu Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Ram Krishan Vs State of Hp and Others

Devi Ram Vs State of Hp and Others

Raksha Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Suresh Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Others

Savitri Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others