Disposed¶16

Kuldeep Chand Sood and Another v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Oct 2025EX.PT/119/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court execution petition disposed; pension commutation; counting of pre-takeover service in privately managed college (National College, Amb) denied; Government takeover of college service held prospective; relief limited to pay-scale protection under order dated 02.12.2011; no mandamus to count prior service; judgment complied with in letter and spirit; Justice Ajay Mohan Goel; Kuldeep Chand Sood v. State of Himachal Pradesh.

What did the court decide?

No further substantive relief; the execution petition and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as the earlier judgment stood complied with in letter and spirit. ¶16

Kuldeep Chand Sood and Another Vs State of Hp and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No further substantive relief; the execution petition and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as the earlier judgment stood complied with in letter and spirit.

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the service rendered by the petitioners in National College, Amb, where they were initially engaged before the Government took over the institution, is to be counted for the purpose of commuting their pension. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The pension to which the petitioners are entitled has to be calculated as from the date their services were taken over by the Government, not from their initial engagement in the college.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The Court's judgment contained no mandamus that services rendered by the petitioners in the institute subsequently taken over were to be counted for pension.

¶15

Key takeaways

The taking over of the petitioners' service was prospective, and the only protection given under the earlier order was securing of the pay scale at the time of takeover.ratio¶15
The judgment dated 02.12.2011 now stands complied with in letter and spirit, warranting disposal of the execution petition and pending miscellaneous applications.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Execution Petition (Ex. Petition No.119 of 2023), High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, decided 07.10.2025 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel. Petitioners Shri Kuldeep Chand Sood and another contended that their service in National College, Amb, where they were initially engaged before the Government took over the institution, had not been counted for commuting their pension. The Court held, after perusing its order dated 02.12.2011, that the petitioners' pension must be calculated only from the date their services were taken over by the Government; the 2011 order issued no mandamus to count pre-takeover service for pension, and its relief was specific — fixation of pay at the pay scale drawn at the time of takeover, meaning the takeover was prospective with pay-scale protection alone. Finding the judgment complied with in letter and spirit, the Court disposed of the execution petition along with pending miscellaneous applications.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

Ex. Petition No.119 of 2023 Decided on 07^th October, 2025

¶3

Shri Kuldeep Chand Sood and another

¶4

…Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Himachal Pradesh and another

¶7

…Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?

¶10

For the petitioners : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General.

¶11

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶12

When this case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only surviving grievance of the petitioners is that the service rendered by the petitioners in the College where they were initially engaged i.e., National College, Amb have not been taken into consideration for the purpose of commuting the pension of the petitioners.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the order passed by the Court in favour of the petitioners

¶14

¶15

dated 02.12.2011, this Court is of the considered view that the pension, to which, the petitioners are entitled to obviously has to be calculated as from the date when their services were taken over by the Government. There is no mandamus issued by the Court in the judgment that the services rendered by the petitioners in the institute which was subsequently taken over were to be counted for pension. Otherwise also, the relief granted by the Court to the petitioners was very specific wherein respondents were directed to fix the pay of the petitioners at the time of the taking over of the College in which pay scale they were drawing salary at the time of taking over of the College and their service. This explicitly means that the taking over of the service of the petitioners was prospective and the only protection that was given was of securing of the pay scale.

¶16

Accordingly, as the judgment now stands complied with in letter and spirit, the execution petition is disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶17

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶18

October 07, 2025 (Vinod)

Kuldeep Chand Sood and Another v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Chand Sood and Another v. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kashmir Chand Vs State of Hp and Another

Neeraj Sharma Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Ors.

Arti Vs Sandeep Kumar

Dimple Thakur and Ors. Vs Reeta Devi

Dev Raj Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Anr.

Nishant Dabra Vs Kamlesh Kumar Pant and Others