Disposed

Vinod Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Nov 2023CWP/8414/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed petitioners to file a fresh representation regarding revised pension and gratuity to the Respondent No.2 and disposed of the writ petition without deciding merits, leaving all questions open. Hearing completed on November 3, 2023.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to make fresh representation to Respondent No.2 within three weeks for benefits; authority to decide within four weeks.

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8414 of 2023 Decided on: 3^rd November, 2023

¶3

____________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar & ors. ....Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & ors. ….Respondents

¶4

Coram

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶6

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶7

For the petitioners	:	Mr. Naresh Verma, Advocat	e.
For the respondents	:	Mr. Vishal Panwar, Add Advocate General,	itional for
		respondents No.1 to 3.
		Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, respondent No.4.	for

¶8

Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)

¶9

The petitioners, being retiree, from the post of Technician Grade II from the establishment of Executive Engineer (Electrical Division No.I; HPPWD, Shimla-1), on 31.10.2021 and on 28.02.2018, respectively, have filed the instant writ petition, with the following prayers:-

¶10

i) “That the respondents may be directed release the revised pension of the petitioners from

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

1.1.2016 to 31.10.2021 & 28.02.2018 i.e. up-to the date of superannuation with statutory interest of 9% till the date of its realization on account of delayed period payments, in terms of judgment rendered in CWP No.2108/2013 Bhagat Ram Vs HRTC by issuing a writ of Mandamus.

¶14

ii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the arrears of revised Gratuity and Leave encashment as per office memorandum dated 25.02.2022 after 01.01.2016 with statutory interest of 9% per Annum.”

¶15

2. Case of the petitioners is that the RespondentsState as per Notification dated 03.01.2022, granted revising the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that consequent upon the issuance of notification, dated 03.01.2022 the Respondents-State was duty bound to grant the benefit of (i) revised pay scales, pay fixation and arrear for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the date of retirement; and (ii) benefit of revised retiral benefits as per Notification dated 25.02.2022, i.e. revised pension, revised gratuity, revised leave encashment and revised commuted pension to the petitioners-retirees.

¶16

3. Learned counsel further submits that firstly ,

¶17

¶18

Respondents-State have not released the arrears of pay for the period from 01.01.2016 till their retirement, as yet; secondly , it is submitted that the Revised Pension, Revised Gratuity, Encashment and Revised Commuted Pension have neither been assessed/sanctioned nor released to the petitioners till day.

¶19

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 along with arrears with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till its realization.

¶20

5. On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, 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. He further submits that after the issuance of Notification

¶21

¶22

dated 03.01.2022 (as referred to in Para 2) supra , the State Authorities have issued communication on 17.09.2022, deciding to give the Revised Pay and Revised Arrears to the employees, though in installments. He further submits that the present writ petition does not deal with or disclose these material aspects and therefore, in these circumstances, in case the petitioners approach the Respondents-Competent Authority, their case shall be considered in view of existing norms.

¶23

6. In addition to the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General as in Para 5 (supra) 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 was submitted 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 relevant rules/law. These material aspects are

¶24

¶25

missing in the instant case.

¶26

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

¶27

8. Accordingly, as prayed for, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court permits the petitioners to make a fresh representation(s), to Respondent No.2-Engineer-inChief (HPPWD), to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, within three weeks from today, with a direction to the aforesaid respondent, to decide the same by passing appropriate order(s), within four weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly.

¶28

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

¶29

In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also

¶30

¶31

stand disposed of, accordingly.

¶32

(Ranjan Sharma) Judge

¶33

November 03, 2023

¶34

(Shivender)

Vinod Kumar and Others v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and Others 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

Nand Lal Vs State of Hp

Anokhi Ram Vs Sandeep Bhatnagar and Anr.

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Others

Mrinal Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Mansara Devi Vs State of Hp and Others

Anju Bala Vs State of Hp and Others