Disposed

Madan Lal v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Dec 2023CWPOA/5708/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition regarding pension claims after retirement. The court observed that the case could only proceed upon payment of a specific amount by the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with a direction for the respondents to forward the file.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to submit petitioner's case to Accountant General Office, Shimla, for deposit of required amount.

Madan Lal Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWPOA No.5708 of 2020 Date of Decision: 13.12.2023

Madan Lal

……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.

¶7

…....Respondents

¶8

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral)

¶13

Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 23.11.2023, received from the Directorate of Higher Education, whereby it has been informed as under:

¶14

“The petitioner retired on 28-02-2017 after attaining the age of 58 years before the issuance of Govt. notification dated 21-02-2018 in which it has been conveyed that class-IV Govt. employee engaged prior to 10-05-2001 shall be retired at the age of 60 years. It is further submitted that petitioner has already submitted his option for old Pension Scheme on dated 27-06-2023 for which concerned retiree has been made aware of the rules and conditions that to get OPS, he has to deposit the Govt. NPS Share alongwith accrued dividends in the concerned Treasury through Challaan. After that his

¶15

¶16

case will be sent to AG office, Shimla for further action. The petitioner has not deposited the amount yet, therefore, his pension case has not been submitted to Accountant General Himachal Pradesh. It is also submitted that retirement benefits has been given to the petitioner as per his superannuation age i.e 58 years. His total regular service comprises of 08 years, 03 months w.e.f 01-12-2008 to 28-02-2017 and he was paid retirement benefits as under:-

¶17

(i) An amount of Rs. 2,43,093/- towards his 60% of total NPS corpus on superannuation.

¶18

(ii) An amount of Rs. 82544/- towards DCRG sanctioned by AGHP

¶19

(iii) An amount of Rs. 1,55,124/- on account of Leave encashment for 247 days.

¶20

(iv) An amount of Rs. 1491/- on account of GIS Subscription.”

¶21

2. In view of above, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present petition, except directing the respondents to submit case of the petitioner to the Accountant General Office, Shimla, for deposit of the amount, which is required to be deposited by the petitioner.

¶22

3. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶23

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge

¶24

(manjit)

¶25

December 13, 2023

Madan Lal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Lal v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aditya Padera Vs Advaita

Dev Ashish Bhatacharya Vs Rachna Gupta

Om Prakash Vs Hrtc and Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Hp

Abhimanyu Singh Vs State of Hp

Kush Dev Singh Vs State of Hp