Disposed

Onkar Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC1 Oct 2024EX.P./821/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution petition seeking enforcement of an earlier judgment directing the corporation to treat the petitioner's intervening period between removal and reinstatement as qualifying service for pension and gratuity. Respondents produced office communication showing revised gratuity paid and pension worked out; execution petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None granted; execution petition disposed noting respondents' payment of revised gratuity and pension recalculation, with liberty reserved to petitioner.

Onkar Singh Vs Hrtc and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Ex. Pet. No.821 of 2024 Decided on: 1^st October, 2024

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Onkar Singh …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶6

Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶10

The petitioner seeks enforcement of the decision rendered in Onkar Singh Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others² . The aforesaid case

¶11

was disposed of in terms of the following operative directions:-

¶12

“15. Consequently, in view of above, this court finds merit in the present petition and the same is allowed. Respondent corporation is directed to consider the intervening period i.e. from date of removal to the date of reinstatement for pension and gratuity in terms of office order dated 26.2.2005 passed by appellate authority.”

¶13

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes

¶14

2 CWP No.3447 of 2022, decided on 28.09.2023

¶15

¶16

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record office communication dated 27.09.2024. In terms of the said office communication, after considering the intervening period of Dies-Non, i.e. from the date of removal of the petitioner to the date of his reinstatement (05.06.1995 to 03.04.2005) as qualifying service for pension and gratuity, the revised pension and gratuity as admissible to the petitioner was worked out. The revised gratuity order had been issued in case of the petitioner on 25.09.2024 and the same stands paid to him vide Cheque No.173410, dated 27.09.2024. The office communication also reflects pension payable to the petitioner after commutation alongwith dearness relief @ 90%. This office communication also states that in terms of the exercise carried out by the respondents while complying with the directions issued in the judgment, it was found that there would be no effect upon the monthly pension of the petitioner from 01.04.2014. The office communication dated 27.09.2024 speaks for itself.

¶17

3. Taking note of the office communication dated 27.09.2024 issued by the respondents, the execution petition to stand disposed of. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to lay challenge to the aforesaid office

¶18

¶19

communication in accordance with law, in case he feels aggrieved by it.

¶20

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

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 01, 2024 Judge Mukesh

Onkar Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar Singh v. Hrtc and Ors.

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

Lalita Kumari Vs Gaurav Thakur

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Anil Kumar and Ors.

Udho Ram Vs Sandeep Gupta

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Hitanshu Jishtu and Another Vs Sanjay Ronta

M/S Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Hp and Anr.