Allowed¶14

Kanshi Ram v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC19 Sept 2025CWPOA/7899/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Kanshi Ram; State of H.P.; CWPOA No. 7899 of 2019; Himachal Pradesh High Court; Satyen Vaidya; pension; qualifying service; CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972; Balo Devi vs. State of H.P.; Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022; SLP (C) No. 18830 of 2021; time-bound direction to respondent No.3; six weeks; detailed and reasoned order; CMP-T No. 511 of 2025; decided 19.9.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed on the limited prayer: respondent No.3 (competent authority) directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Balo Devi (supra) within six weeks by passing a detailed and reasoned order; pending miscellaneous application(s) stand disposed of. ¶14

Kanshi Ram Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the competent authority (respondent No.3) should be directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case for pension in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, the petitioner's regular service having fallen short of the qualifying service required under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

¶10

Court's answer

The petitioner's innocuous prayer is allowed: without adverting to the merits of the case, respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Balo Devi (supra), within six weeks, by passing a detailed and reasoned order.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

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

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Kanshi Ram v. State of H.P., CWPOA No. 7899 of 2019 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Satyen Vaidya, Judge, Oral; decided 19.9.2025): Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if respondent No.3 (competent authority) were issued time-bound directions to consider and decide the petitioner's case in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Balo Devi vs. State of H.P. and others (Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022, arising out of SLP (C) No. 18830 of 2021, decided 18.7.2022). Prima facie, the petitioner had rendered regular service with the respondent department, but it fell short of the qualifying service required under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to make him eligible for pension under those rules. Treating the prayer as innocuous, the Court, without adverting to the merits, allowed the petition and directed respondent No.3 to consider and decide the petitioner's case in light of Balo Devi (supra) within six weeks by a detailed and reasoned order; CMP-T No. 511 of 2025 was allowed and pending miscellaneous application(s) stood disposed of.

Kanshi Ram v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanshi Ram v. State of Hp

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

Satish Kumar Choudhary Vs Bala Devi and others

Amar Singh Jaswal Vs State of Hp

Mehar Singh Vs Hrtc

Jagbandhan Lal Vs State of Hp

Shashi Pal Vs State of Hp

Usha Devi Vs State of Hp