Allowed

Mahender Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC8 Jul 2024RP/53/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the review petition filed by Mahender Singh against a prior order that disposed of his case. The court recalled the impugned order and restored the CMPOR No.7009/2020 to its original number, finding an error apparent on the face of the record by not considering the relevant Tribunal judgment.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed, order dated 22.04.2024 recalled, and CWPOA No.7009 of 2020 restored to its original number.

Mahender Singh Vs State of Hp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

( 2024:HHC:4755 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Review Petition No.53 of 2024 Date of decision: 08.07.2024

¶3

Mahender Singh ….Petitioner Versus

¶4

State of H.P. and others ….Respondents

¶5

Coram:

¶6

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?¹

¶7

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Navlesh Verma, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1.

¶8

Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4.

¶9

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge(Oral):

¶10

The instant review petition is directed against the order dated 22.04.2024, passed by this Court in CWPOA No.7009 of 2020 , titled as Mahender Singh vs. State of H.P. & others , whereby the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgment rendered by learned Full Bench of this Court in CWP

¶11

¶12

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

¶13

( 2024:HHC:4755 )

¶14

¶15

No.2711 of 2017 , titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others , decided on 22.02.2022 .

¶16

The review is primarily sought on the ground that the case of the petitioner in fact was ought to have been directed to be considered in light of the judgment rendered by the erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1004/2015 , titled as Krishan Chand vs. State of H.P., decided on 10.01.2018 , which judgment, in turn, was upheld by this Court in CWP No.1577 of 2018 , titled as State of H.P. vs. Krishan Chand and eventually upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the dismissal of the SLP filed by the State, vide order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to this effect on 13.09.2019 in (SLP(c) D. No.18076/2019).

¶17

We have gone through the records of the case and find that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had approached the erstwhile Tribunal by filing the original application being O.A. No.2636/2019, which on the closure of the Tribunal, came to be registered as CWPOA No.7009/2020 and the petitioner therein had claimed the following substantive reliefs:-

¶18

“(i) That the office order No.9/HPSEBL/2019 dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure A-6) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside with exemplary costs.

¶19

( 2024:HHC:4755 )

¶20

¶21

(ii) That the respondent-State may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 to 60 years to the locomotor impaired to which category the applicant belongs, as specified under Section 2(i) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

¶22

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to treat the applicant in service till he attains the age of 60 years and the respondents may further be directed to release all the consequential benefits to the applicant with upto date interest @ 12% per annum.”

¶23

Now, in case office order dated 22.04.2019 (Annexure

¶24

A-6) is seen, it would be noticed that this is an order which was passed by the respondent-Board on the directions passed by the erstwhile Tribunal in an earlier petition filed by the petitioner herein in O.A. No.994/2019. Respondent-Board, at the relevant time, had rejected the contention of the petitioner regarding his case being covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.1577/2018 , titled State of H.P. vs. Krishan Chand , primarily on the ground that the judgment passed by this Court had not attained finality as the SLP filed by the State against the said judgment was still pending consideration. The ratio laid down in Baldev’s case ( supra ), as directed by this Court, was nowhere in question as the case is

¶25

( 2024:HHC:4755 )

¶26

¶27

essentially revolved around the ratio laid down in Krishan Chand’s case (supra) .

¶28

Obviously in such circumstances, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the review petition is allowed, order dated 22.04.2024 is recalled and CWPOA No.7009 of

¶29

2020, titled as Mahender Singh vs. State of H.P., is ordered to be restored to its original number.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, shall also disposed of

¶31

accordingly.

¶32

( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge

¶33

( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge

¶34

July 08, 2024

¶35

(reena)

Mahender Singh v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahender Singh 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

State Vs Poshan Mahntoo

Narotic Control Bureau Vs Kaltu Ram

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Hp

State Vs Lal Babu Chaudhary

Rajender Kumar Vs State of Hp

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Hp