State of Hp and Others Vs Raji Nand and Another

2024, titled Raji Nand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 09.10.2025, whereby learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition by directing the State to grant pension/arrears of pension as well as other retiral benefits to the

¶21

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

¶22

2026:HHC:22574

¶23

petitioner with effect from 01.11.2013 till date, preferably within two months.

¶24

The said relief had been granted on account of the fact that Pension Payment Order had already been issued by the competent authority i.e. Office of the Accountant General in the year 2024, but the same has not been acted upon.

¶25

Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the employee as such, had retired after 16 years of service on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 30.10.2011, having been initially appointed in the year 1995 and his services were regularized in the year 2007 and had been granted work charge status/regularization with effect from 01.01.2003.

¶26

It was noticed that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2711 of 2017 , titled Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, dated 26.07.2022, the Class-IV employees, who were engaged prior to 10.05.2001 and were subsequently regularized, were to be superannuated at the age of 60 years, but the employee/petitioner had been retired on 30.10.2011 at the age of 58 years. He had, accordingly, issued a legal notice, which was responded to by considering him retired on 31.10.2013, but the pension had not been revised and paid.

¶27

It was noticed that the Office of the Accountant General as such, had granted the pension to the petitioner vide

¶28

2026:HHC:22574

¶29

Pension Payment Orders dated 18/30.01.2024, with effect from 01.11.2013, which the employee was desirous of, but since the same had not been paid, he had approached this Court.

¶30

The stand of the State is that when the benefit in Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 , titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 08.03.2018, had been granted and it was also kept in mind that if any adjustment have to be made in terms of the said judgment, the same be done. Rather, it was held out that the petitioner had rendered more than 10 years of regular service, since the benefit of additional two years service had been granted and the same had also been authorized in his favour by the Office of the Accountant General vide Pension Payment Order dated 18.01.2024 (Annexure P-3).

¶31

A perusal of order dated 30.01.2024, passed by the Accountant General as such, would go on to show that the Office of the Accountant General had revised the pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.11.2013 and his case of pension had been finalized on the basis of the qualifying service of 23 half years and this relief was claimed in the writ petition also, but despite of the said order, the same had not been disbursed for the reasons best known to them. Specific pleadings are made in Paragraph No.12 of the writ petition, to which reply was filed by the State, in which there was no such response as to why the

¶32

2026:HHC:22574

¶33

benefit of the fixation of the revised pension was not being released to the petitioner.

¶34

Perusal of the writ file would also go on to show that respondent No.5 i.e. Accountant General, did not object to the prayer and had not filed any reply. The State has also been silent as such, only holding out that the benefit as per Sunder Singh’s case (supra), had been granted.

¶35

In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that once the benefits have been granted as per Baldev Singh’s case (supra) and the retirement has to be considered from 31.10.2013, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed to grant pension as such, from 01.11.2013. Accordingly, there is apparently no error as such with the judgment, qua which the State warrants interference, specially more so, when the implementation of the order passed by the Accountant General as such, was prayed for in the writ petition.

¶36

The present appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶37

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶38

(Bipin C. Negi)

¶39

Judge

¶40

June 15, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)

State of Hp and Others v. Raji Nand and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. Raji Nand 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

Safex Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sml Limited

Seema Devi and Others Vs Rajinder Singh and Others

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp and Others

Subhkaran and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

court on its Own Motion Vs State of Hp

court on its Own Motion Vs State of Hp