Partly allowed

Vijay Singh v. Hrtc and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Nov 2023CWP/8185/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retiree petitioner seeks arrears of revised pension and gratuity under new scales. Court finds petition vague on particulars. Petitioner permitted to submit fresh representation with detailed claims within two weeks, to be decided by authorities within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a fresh representation with details within two weeks; authorities directed to decide it within six weeks. Writ petition disposed of.

Vijay Singh Vs Hrtc and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8185 of 2023 Decided on: 1^st November, 2023

¶3

____________________________________________________ Vijay Singh ....Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) & anr. ….Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶8

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶9

For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Vaishisht, Advocate.

¶10

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶11

Notice. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Vaishisht, learned counsel for the respondents, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶12

2. The petitioner, a retiree, having retired from the post of Conductor from HRTC Dehra Unit, on 28.02.2019, has filed the instant petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶13

“i. That respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of Petitioner for granting the

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

arrear of revised pension/family pension/ gratuity/Revised Salary within a time bound manner with up to date Interest.

¶17

ii. That respondent may kindly be directed to Revise the Leave Encashment of the Petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn as now been re-fixed and to make the payment with interest within a time bound manner.

¶18

iii. The respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the Representation (Annexure P-4) of the Petitioner accordance with law within time bound manner.”

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶20

that the representation dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-4) is pending, whereby, in terms of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay Rules) dated 25.02.2022 (Annexure P-I), giving Revised Pay Scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and the Office Memorandum dated 25.02.2022 issued by the State Government giving Revised Pension/Gratuity/Commuted pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016; which Notifications were adopted and applied by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation to its employees as per communication dated 01.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) giving Revised Retiral Benefits to all employees alike the petitioner(s) and in this background the petitioner(s)

¶21

¶22

is claiming benefits of (i) the arrears of revised pay w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the date of his superannuation; and (ii) the revised retiral benefits i.e. Revised Pension, Revised Gratuity, Revised Leave Encashment and Revised Commuted Pension along interest thereon. He further submits that he shall be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to decide the representation dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-4), after taking into account the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2108 of 2023 , titled as Bhagat Ram Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others , decided on 31.05.2023 , within time bound manner.

¶23

4. Perusal of the pleadings reveals that the instant petition is vague and does not disclose the material particulars, as to the nature and extent of retiral benefits due and released; and if not, the nomenclature of retiral benefits (including the factum as to whether option required for revised commuted pension survives or not, etc) which are yet to be released; and the extent of interest admissible on non-release and/or belated release of these retiral benefits and extent of interest admissible, on the basis of

¶24

¶25

relevant rules/law are missing in the instant case.

¶26

5. Per contra, Dheeraj Kumar Vaishisht, learned

¶27

counsel for the respondents states that the RespondentCorporation has filed a review petition, seeking review of the judgment passed in case of Bhagat Ram (supra) .

¶28

6. Faced with this situation, at this stage, Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel prays for permission to make a representation, giving all details-particulars, to the authorities for ventilating his claim(s). The request being innocuous is not opposed by Mr. Dheeraj Vaishisht, learned opposing counsel also.

¶29

7. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and

¶30

circumstances, and as per the request so made, this Court permits the petitioner to make a fresh representation to Respondent No.1-Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, giving all details material-particulars, in continuation of representation dated 01.06.2023 (Annexure P-4), within two weeks from today; with further directions to aforesaid respondent-authority to decide the same in the light of existing norms, rules and law, including the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Bhagat Ram

¶31

¶32

(supra), within six weeks thereafter.

¶33

8. As aforesaid questions left open, the instant writ

¶34

petition, as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶35

In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶36

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶37