Disposed¶5

Durga Ram v. the Hpu and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC13 Aug 2025CWP/8901/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.8901 of 2025; HP High Court Shimla; Sandeep Sharma J.; decided 13.08.2025; pension arrears three-year restriction; HPU office order 18.12.2023 Annexure P-2; Finance (Pay Revision) Department instructions 15.12.2011; corrigendum 15.05.2025 Annexure R-1/A; authority letter 19.06.2025 Annexure R-1/B; revised retiral benefits without interest; gratuity leave encashment commuted pension; parity Jagdish Chand Tara Chand; CWPOA No. 4817 of 2019 Durga Ram Vs. HP University; interest @ 7.5% per annum from February 2024; pick and choose policy; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent-University to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum on arrears of revised retiral benefits for the period from February, 2024 till actual payment, expeditiously, preferably within three weeks; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Durga Ram Vs the Hpu and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the office order dated 18.12.2023 restricting the petitioner's arrears of pension/retiral benefits to three years prior to filing of the claim petition (29.09.2020) was sustainable, the petitioner alleging a pick-and-choose policy in grant of revised retirement benefits. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In view of the fair statement of counsel for the respondent-University (benefits already extended from superannuation and interest undertaken to be paid), nothing remained to be adjudicated and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

¶5

Key takeaways

The respondent-University was directed to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum on arrears of revised retiral benefits only for the period starting from February, 2024 (when the petitioner became eligible/was to be paid) till actual payment, expeditiously, preferably within three weeks; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. Parity with Jagdish Chand and Tara Chand (paid with interest in February, 2024 pursuant to CWPOA No. 4817 of 2019) was thus confined, and interest @ 7.5% was fixed in place of the 9% prayed.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Sandeep Sharma, J.), CWP No.8901 of 2025, decided 13.08.2025 — Pension/retiral benefits. Retired University employee (superannuated 2013) assailed office order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) restricting arrears of revised pensionary benefits to three years prior to his claim petition dated 29.09.2020, per Finance (Pay Revision) Department instructions dated 15.12.2011. During pendency the condition was withdrawn vide corrigendum dated 15.05.2025 and revised retiral benefits (pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commuted value) were extended from superannuation vide authority letter dated 19.06.2025, but without interest; co-employees Jagdish Chand and Tara Chand had been paid with up-to-date interest in February, 2024 pursuant to this Court's direction in CWPOA No. 4817 of 2019 (Durga Ram Vs. HP University). On the University's fair statement, the Court held nothing survived for adjudication, negatived parity for the period prior to February, 2024, and disposed of the petition directing payment of interest @ 7.5% per annum from February, 2024 till realisation, preferably within three weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.8901 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.08.2025

¶3

_______________________________________________________ Durga Ram …….Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Himachal Pradesh University & Anr. ….Respondents

¶6

Coram:

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S.Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶9

Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2-State.

¶10

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶11

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

¶12

following main reliefs:-

¶13

“a) That the impugned office order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) to the extent it restricts the claim of petitioner for arrears of pension and other retiral benefits for three years prior to the date of filing petition in terms of instructions dated 15.12.2011 may be quashed and set aside while issuing writ in the nature of Certiorari.

¶14

b) That the respondents may be directed to release/pay the full/entire arrears of pension and other retiral benefits like Gratuity, Leave Encashment and Commuted value of pension to the petitioner from the due date i.e. 1^st February, 2013 the date of retirement till actual payment along with interest @ 9% per annum while issuing writ in the nature of mandamus.”

¶15

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

¶16

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. R.S.Gautam,

¶17

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

¶19

learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that respondent/University has adopted pick and choose policy, while granting revised retirement benefits to the petitioner, vide office order No. 9-268/79-HPU (Estt.) Volume-II, dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-2) , wherein one condition stipulates that payment of arrears, if any, shall be restricted to three years prior to the date of filing the claim petition i.e. 29.09.2020, in terms of instructions dated 15.12.2011 issued by the Finance (Pay Revision) Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh.

¶20

3. Though subsequently aforesaid condition has been withdrawn, vide corrigendum dated 15.05.2025 (Annexure R-1/A) and the revised retiral benefits, as claimed by the petitioner, have been extended to him from the date of superannuation i.e. 31.03.2013, vide authority letter No.1-114/90-HPU (Pension) Volume-V dated 19.06.2025 (Annexure R-1/B), but without interest. Though two persons namely, Jagdish Chand and Tara Chand, were granted benefit of revised retiral benefits from the date of their superannuation along with upto date interest, pursuant to direction passed by this Court in CWPOA No. 4817 of 2019, titled as Durga Ram Vs. HP University, but, such benefit has been denied to the petitioner.

¶21

4. Ms. Archna Dutt, learned counsel representing the respondent/University, while referring to reply filed by the respondents, specifically, order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the respondent-University, thereby revising the retiral benefits of the

¶22

¶23

petitioner with effect from his superannuation i.e. 30.01.2013, states that interest, if any payable, shall also be paid to the petitioner. She states that insofar as payment of interest is concerned, petitioner cannot claim parity with persons namely Jagdish Chand and Tara Chand, who were given full arrears qua revised retiral benefits in February, 2024, whereas petitioner, who though was eligible to be granted such benefit in February, 2024, has been released such benefit, vide order dated 19.06.2025, meaning thereby petitioner shall be entitled to interest only for the intervening period, which shall be paid to him.

¶24

5. In view of aforesaid fair statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-University, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondent-University to ensure that interest @ 7.5% per annum qua the period starting from February, 2024 till amount, on account of arrears of revised retiral benefits, is paid to the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within three weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

August 13, 2025 (sunil)

¶26

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

Durga Ram v. the Hpu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Ram v. the Hpu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Labh Singh Vs the Hpsebl and Another

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Bimla Devi Vs the UOI and Others

M/S Kbs Enterprises and another Vs Spar Weldtech Pvt. Ltd.

Kamaljeet Vs Mc Shimla

Virender Singh Vs State of Hp and Another