Dismissed

Pritam Chand v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC17 May 2024CWPOA/5493/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning pension and financial benefits, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the matter based on the Respondents' instructions confirming a prior order. The Court rejected the claim for extended benefits due to the petition's significant delay.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of on the basis of the Respondents' instructions dated 08.05.2024.

Pritam Chand Vs State of Hp — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWPOA No.5493 of 2020 Date of Decision: 17.05.2024

¶4

___________________________________________________ Pritam Chand

¶5

....Petitioner Versus …Respondents

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

¶7

___________________________________________________ Coram_

¶8

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Panku Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General.

¶11

________________________________________________ Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

¶12

Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on

¶13

record instructions dated 08.05.2024, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-

¶14

“In this context it is submitted that as per order dated 18.10.2023 passed in CWPOA 5493/2020 by the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh Shimla that the petitioner was engaged in the year 1994 and in terms of Rakesh Kumar Judgment, he has been granted benefit of work charge status w.e.f. 01-01-2002 and financial benefit have been extended to him for preceding 3 years from the date of his retirement i.e. 31-01-2008 which come to Rs.1,32,633/-(Rs. One Lac Thirty Two Thousand Six

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

Hundred Thirty Three) only. Keeping in view of above the said amount has been deposit in the account No.3353000306183418 of petitioner on dated 07-05-2024 in Punjab National Bank Una by this office. (Copy of Abstract of payment is enclosed)”

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

¶19

after considering the claim of the petitioner, he should be held entitled to the entire amount of financial benefits and the same ought not to be restricted to three years preceding from the date of his retirement.

¶20

We find no force in such a submission, given the fact that the petitioner was retired on 31.01.2008 and the instant petition was filed more than ten years later on 12.11.2018. Obviously, in such circumstances, the stand of the respondents is absolutely clear.

¶21

Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of on the basis of aforesaid instructions dated 08.05.2024.

¶22

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge

¶25

(Sushil Kukreja) May 17, 2024 Judge (VH)

Pritam Chand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Chand v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravinder Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Machhla Ram Vs State of Hp

State of Hp Vs Ms Techer Power Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Kundan Lal Vs State of Hp and Others

Hem Raj Vs State of Hp and Others

Satya Devi Vs State of Hp