Biasan Devi Vs the State of Hp and Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.8375 of 2021 a/w CWP Nos.4434 & 9714 of 2024 Date of Decision: 23.05.2025

________________________ 1. CWP No.8375 of 2021	__________________________________
Mast Ram State of H.P. and Another	…….Petitioner Versus ….Respondents
________________________ 2. CWP No.4434 of 2024	__________________________________
Hirdya Ram and Others	…….Petitioners Versus
State of H.P. and Another	….Respondents
________________________ 3. CWP No.9714 of 2024	__________________________________
Biasan Devi	…….Petitioner Versus
State of H.P. and Another	….Respondents
________________________ Coram:	__________________________________
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandee	p Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reportin	g?¹
For the Petitioners: Mr.	P.D. Nanda, Advocate, in all the petitions.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vis with Ge	Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. hal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate neral, for State, in all the petitions.
Mr. Ms. Raj res	Vijay Kumar Arora, Senior Advocate, with Godawari, Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Mr. Hitansh and Ms. Aastha Kohli, Advocates, for pondent No.2, in all the petitions.

¶4

____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

¶5

Since common questions of facts and law are involved in all

¶6

the above captioned cases, same were heard together and are now

¶7

being disposed of vide common judgment.

¶8

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

¶9

2

¶10

Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by Mr. P.D. Nanda, learned counsel representing the petitioners is that though petitioners herein are in receipt of pension, but yet they are not being given benefit of revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

¶11

Facts, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by parties to the lis are that petitioners herein were initially appointed as Factory Workers in the H.P. Government Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Bilaspur, in the year 1968. In 1974, services of the petitioner were transferred to the newly created H.P. Forest Development Corporation and since then, they kept on discharging their duties in aforesaid Corporation, till their superannuation. On 29.10.1999, State of Himachal Pradesh formulated a policy for grant of pension to the employees of the Public Sector Undertakings under the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 (Annexure P-1). Petitioners herein retired from afore Corporation between the year 1999 to 2004 and after their retirement, they were given pension. However, on 02.12.2004, State Government repealed the Pension Scheme with immediate effect by protecting the employees retired between the periods from 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004 and as such, petitioners, who had superannuated between afore period kept on receiving pension. On 04.01.2011, this Court passed judgment in CWP No.4998 of 2010, titled Bimla Sood Vs. State of H.P. for payment of pension in terms of pension scheme. Though respondents being

¶12

3

¶13

aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, filed LPA before the Division Bench of this Court, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 04.01.2011. Judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in LPA was further assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh by way of SLP, but the same was also dismissed.

¶14

Now, precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been put forth in the petitions at hand is that once they are in receipt of pension, in terms of policy of pension formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1999, they cannot be denied subsequent revisions of pension, that too on the ground that Corporation does not have sufficient funds.

¶15

Respondent No.2 by way of filing reply to the petition has attempted to refute the claim of the petitioners on the ground that on 29.10.1999, Government of Himachal Pradesh had issued notification wherein employees of Public Sector Undertakings were given the benefit of pension and gratuity. Clause No.5 of above notification clearly reflects that a corpus/fund had to be created for the disbursement of the pension and the same was to be administered and maintained by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in the Finance Department. While referring to Para No.3 of preliminary submissions of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent No.2 further argued that under Clause No.5(2) of the Pension Scheme, corpus for pension fund was to

¶16

4

¶17

be maintained through the contribution of employee at the rate of 12% of the basic pay plus D.A.

¶18

Though having taken note of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties, this Court finds no fault in aforesaid submission of Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent No.2, but he was unable to dispute that Government of Himachal Pradesh repealed the said Pension Scheme vide notification dated 02.12.2004, but protected the interest of employees who retired from service w.e.f. 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004 (Annexure P-2), meaning thereby, petitioners herein, who had retired from service between 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004 were to be granted pension in terms of policy formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 29.10.1999, under CCS Pension Rules, 1972.

¶19

Moreover, it is not in dispute, rather, stands duly admitted that petitioners herein are in receipt of pension under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Precise grouse of the petitioners is with regard to revision of pension, which otherwise cannot be denied for the reason that all the pensioners in another departments of respondents-State have been given benefit of revision of pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Had respondents succeeded in establishing that petitioners herein were not granted pension in terms of Policy of 1999, formulated by the Government of Himachal Pradesh under CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and they are in receipt of pension under Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees

¶20

5

¶21

(Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension Gratuity) Scheme, 1999, this Court would have been persuaded to agree with Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.2 that petitioners herein are not entitled to revision of pension. Since it is apparent from the record, especially reply filed by respondent No.2 that Government of Himachal Pradesh while repealing Pension Scheme of 1999, protected the interest of employees, who had retired from service w.e.f. 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004 and till date, they are in receipt of pension, in terms of Policy of 1999 framed under CCS Pension Rules, 1972, as such, there appears to be no justification for not granting benefit of pay revision to the petitioner.

¶22

Consequently, in view of discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in all the above captioned cases and accordingly the same are allowed. Respondents are directed to grant benefit of revision of pension to the petitioners from the date of revision i.e. 01.01.2016. Though at this stage, Mr. Vijay Kumar Arora, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent No.2 and Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, attempted to argue that petitioners can be held entitled to financial benefits after their filing the petition(s) at hand, but such plea of them deserves outright rejection for the reason that though pay revision of pension was done w.e.f. 01.01.2016, but such notification came to be implemented in the year 2022. After issuance of notification, thereby notifying revision of pension, petitioners approached

¶23

6

¶24

this Court immediately through instant petition. In view of the above, petitioners are entitled to benefit of revision of pension from due date. Since petitioners have been fighting for their rightful claim for years together, this Court hopes and trusts that needful shall be done expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months. .

¶25

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

¶27

May 23, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)

Biasan Devi v. the State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biasan Devi v. the State of Hp 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amin Chand Vs the State of Hp and Others

Aman Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Another

Khema Nand Vs the Hptdcl and Another

Lalita Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sunil Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vipan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others