Disposed

Rajinder Kumar v. Hpsebl and Anr.

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Nov 2023CWP/8239/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court permitted a retired engineer to file a representation for arrears of pay and revised retiral benefits. The bench did not adjudicate the merits, noting the pending review in the cited judgment, and left all factual and legal questions open while disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to make a representation to the Managing Director of HPSEB within three weeks to claim benefits, to decide within six weeks.

Rajinder Kumar Vs Hpsebl and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8239 of 2023 Decided on: 1^st November, 2023

¶3

____________________________________________________ Rajinder Kumar ....Petitioner Versus HPSEB & anr. ….Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate.

¶7

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶8

Notice. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶9

respondents appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶10

2. The petitioner, being a retiree, from the post of

¶11

Senior Executive Engineer on 30.09.2021, has filed the

¶12

instant writ petition, with the following prayer(s):-

¶13

“i. That the writ in the nature of mandamus or other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to pay arrear of pay as per revision of pay scale w.e.f.01.01.2016 with interest @ 6%

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

per annum from the due date till the date of its realization and they shall also revise the pension, gratuity and leave encashment and pay the same along with interest @ 6 % per annum till date of its realizations. Further, the difference in Leave Encashment on account of revision of pay scale and resultant financial upgradation w.e.f. 1-1.-2016 has become their legal, enforceable and legitimate right in term of Authoritative pronouncement given by Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.2108 of 2023, dated 31.05.2023 tilted as Bhagat Ram Vs. HRTC & Others.”

¶17

3. Case of the petitioner is that the Respondent-

¶18

Board has framed the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2022, as per notification dated 12.04.2022, revising the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016, according to which, the Respondent-Board was duty bound to grant/release the benefits of (i) revised pay scales, revised pay fixation and arrears of revised pay for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the date of retirement; and (ii) benefit of revised retiral benefits i.e. revised pension, revised gratuity, revised leave encashment and revised commuted pension to the petitioners-retirees.

¶19

4. Learned counsel further submits that respondent-

¶20

Board has not released the arrears of pay for the period from 01.01.2016 till his retirement on 30.09.2021, as yet. He

¶21

¶22

further submits that the petitioner is entitled to revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in view of the Notification dated 12.04.2022 in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and Clause (3) of Article 187 of the Constitution of India read with proviso to Sub Rule (1) of the Rule 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Serivice) Rules, 1974. He further submits that admissible arrears of revised pension revised gratuity have been sanctioned, but the same has not been released. He further submits that the Revised Leave Encashment and Revised Commuted Pension has neither been assessed/sanctioned nor released to the petitioner till day.

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 2108 of 2023, decided on 31.05.2023, titled as Bhagat Ram vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others , whereby this Court has mandated the respondents to release the arrears of pay as well as revised retiral benefits alongwith arrears with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till its realization.

¶24

6. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned

¶25

¶26

counsel for the respondents submits that the judgment in case of Bhagat Ram (Supra) has not attained finality, as the HRTC-Respondent therein have filed a Review Petition, which is pending listing/hearing.

¶27

7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, this Court permits him to make representation for claiming above benefits. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed and needs to be granted.

¶28

8. Accordingly, as prayed for, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation, to Respondent No.1-Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd., within three weeks from today, with a direction to the aforesaid respondent, to decide the same within six weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly.

¶29

9. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all questions of facts of law are left open.

¶30

In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as

¶31

¶32

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

¶33

stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶34

(Ranjan Sharma)

¶35

Judge

¶36