Disposed

Sain Dass v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Dec 2023CWP/8139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought difference of arrears referencing a prior judgment granting similar benefits to another employee. Court directed authorities to examine similarity and conditionally grant benefits only if similarity is established.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to examine if petitioner is similarly placed, and conditionally extend monetary benefits from 21.04.2023 if similarity found.

Sain Dass Vs State of Hp and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8139 of 2023

¶3

Decided on: 1^st December, 2023

¶4

___________________________________________________________ Sain Dass

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶8

……Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶11

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶12

For the petitioner:	Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General.

¶13

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶14

Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional

¶15

Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶16

2. The petitioner is seeking difference of arrears

¶17

for the period from 31.08.2012 to February, 2016, in view of the judgment passed by this Court in

¶18

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶19

¶20

CWP No.182 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. & others Versus Sansar Chand and others, decided on

¶21

25.02.2019.

¶22

3. The petitioner claims that he is similarly placed with that of Sansar Chand , as referred to above, and similar treatment should be extended to the petitioner.

¶23

4. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned

¶24

Additional Advocate General, submits that the factum of similarity between the petitioner vis-à-vis Sansar Chand (supra), needs to be examined.

¶25

5. In this background, this Court disposes of the writ petition, by directing the respondents to examine the claim of the petitioner, as referred to above. In case, the petitioner is found to be similarly placed with that of Sansar Chand (supra), then, similar benefits be extended to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that upon consideration, in case, the petitioner is similarly situated, then, all admissible monetary benefits, preceding three

¶26

¶27

years from the date of filing of this petition [21.04.2023], be extended, in case, the monetary benefits have been extended to Sansar Chand (supra).

¶28

In the aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well

¶29

as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

¶30

also stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶31

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶32

December 01, 2023

¶33

(Bhardwaj)

Sain Dass v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sain Dass v. 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

Bhaskar Ram Vs State of Hp

Rattni Devi Vs Shrikant Baldi

Chet Ram Vs Srikant Baldi

Narender Singh and Anr. Vs Hrtc and Anr.

Saroj Rani Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kewal Verma Vs Hrtc and Another