Mohinder Singh Vs State of Hp and Ors.

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Mr.Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General, Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶14

Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶15

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶16

This writ petition has been filed for grant of

¶17

following substantive reliefs:-

¶18

“I) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the respondents to confer the status of daily wage sweeper to the petitioner with effect from 1999 with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc.

¶19

II) That further a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner treating him to be a daily wage sweeper of 1999 w.e.f. 2009 in pursuance to

¶20

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶21

2

¶22

the latest policy of the State of H.P with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc. III) That similar benefits extended in CWP 11506/2011 and later in LPA 579 of 2012 may be extended to the petitioner as well. IV. That the petitioner is not receiving his pension till date because respondents have been sitting over his case arbitrarily. Hence P4 may be calculated and prepared as soon as possible in the interest of justice as its been 2 years since the petitioner has retired from service.”

¶23

2. During pendency of this writ petition,

¶24

respondents passed an order statedly on 16.10.2025 holding the petitioner entitled to pension w.e.f. 06.07.2022 and restricting arrears thereof to a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The operative portion of the aforesaid order reads as under:-

¶25

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors v. Tarsem Singh, 2008(8) SCC 648, has held that in so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply and consequential relief relating to arrears should be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition. This position of law has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court n the matters of State of Madhya Pradesh and other V. Yogendra Shrivastava, (2010) 12 SCC 538, Asger Ibrahim Amin V. Life Insurance Corporation of India, (2016( 13 SCC 797 and Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak V. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, 2022 SCC Online SC 641. This position of Law has been accepted by the Hon’ble High Court in the matter of Union of India and Anr. V. Ajay Bhatti & Ors, CWP No.3743 of 2019, decide don 06.12.2022.”

¶26

3

¶27

3. During the course of today’s hearing, based upon the aforesaid order, learned counsel for respondent No.4, placed on record office instructions dated 31.12.2025 from respondent No.4 alongwith Pension Payment Order sanctioned in favour of the petitioner with date of start of pension as 06.07.2022. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that on the basis of order passed by respondents No. 2 & 3 on 16.10.2025 and the Pension Payment Order now issued by respondent No.4, the pension and arrears of pension will be released in favour of the petitioner within four weeks; Petitioner will start receiving his recurring pension w.e.f. 1^st week of February, 2026.

¶28

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has reservation to the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had retired on 31.05.2022. He was entitled to pension w.e.f. 01.06.2022. Respondents could not have postponed the date of release of his pension to 06.07.2022; Respondents could not have even restricted the arrears of pension payable to the petitioner as release of pension was the responsibility of the respondents who have not paid pension to the petitioner timely. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by the respondent

¶29

4

¶30

No.2 on 16.10.2025 has led to the issuance of Pension Payment Order by the respondent No.4 authorizing release of pension w.e.f. 06.07.2022. Learned counsel submits that these grievances are not subject matter of the present writ petition, therefore, petitioner be reserved liberty to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his aforesaid surviving grievances.

¶31

4. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to release the pension/arrears in terms of their assurance recorded above. Liberty, however, is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievance in accordance with law. Needless to clarify that the grievances not raised by the petitioner have not been gone into in this writ petition. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of.

¶32

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶33

January 01, 2026 yogesh

Mohinder Singh v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Singh v. State of Hp and Ors.

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

Kalpna Kumari and Others Vs the State of Hp and Another

Yudhveer Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ishro Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Komal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Jeet Ram Chauhan Vs the State of Hp and Others

Ranver Singh Thakur Vs State of Hp and Another