Allowed

Padam Dev v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC3 Sept 2024CWP/9162/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the petition of a retired Class-IV employee, deeming him to have retired at age 60 for pension fixation. He is denied actual monetary benefits for the interim period but entitled to notional pay for pension calculation. Benefits to be released with 6% interest if delayed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner deemed retired at age 60; not entitled to actual wages for interim period but entitled to pension and consequential arrears calculated notationally; benefits to be released within six month

Padam Dev Vs the State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

( 2024:HHC:7837 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶4

C WP No.9162 of 2024

¶5

Date of Decision : 03.09.2024

¶6

Padam Dev …… Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Himachal Pradesh and others ……Respondents

¶9

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the petitioner : Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General.

¶12

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)

¶13

Notice. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General,

¶14

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

¶15

The petitioner was engaged as a parti-time Water Carrier-cumPeon on 26.08.2002. Subsequent thereto, the services of the petitioner were converted into a daily wage w.e.f. 06.12.2012. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were regularized on 26.08.2017. The petitioner retired from service on 31.08.2022. Being a Class-IV employee, the petitioner submits that he should have been permitted to have continued in service till he attained the age of 60 years.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

( 2024:HHC:7837 )

¶19

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision dated 22.02.2022, passed in CWP No.2711 of 2017 , titled Baldev vs. State of H.P. and other s.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically drawn attention of this Court to direction No.(iii) contained in the aforesaid judgment. Relevant extract whereof is being reproduced herein below:-

¶21

“Since the petitioner has not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, he will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, he will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.”

¶22

Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents/State fairly submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment passed in Baldev’s case supra.

¶23

In view thereof, petition is allowed. The petitioner is deemed to have retired at the age of 60 years. Since the petitioner has not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, the petitioner will not be entitled to actual monetary benefits of wages/salary for the period of service from the date of his actual retirement till deemed dates of his retirement. Consequential benefits granted to the petitioner be released within a period of six months from today, failing which, petitioner shall be entitled to interest thereupon @ 6%.

¶24

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending

¶26

miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶27

( Bipin Chander Negi)

¶28

September 03, 2024 (KS) Judge

Padam Dev v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padam Dev v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghbir Singh Vs Bohra Ram

Anup Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

Hem Raj Vs the Hptdcl

Hari Nand Mehta Vs Veena

Ajay Gupta and Another Vs Mc Shimla

Lal Dei Vs State of Hp and Another