A set of connected civil service pension matters were disposed of by setting aside the petitions and directing the respondents to decide them within six weeks due to a stay on the relevant precedent.
Directed respondents to consider respective cases within six weeks after adjudication of LPA No.205 of 2025.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
| CWP No.15941 of 2026 alongwith connected matters Decided on: 15thSeptember, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|---|
| 1. CWP No.15941 of 2026 |
| Nirmla Devi and others …..Petitioners |
| Versus |
| State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 2. CWP No.15971 of 2026 |
| Dilbag Singh and another …..Petitioners |
| Versus |
| State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 3. CWP No.15973 of 2026 |
| Punam Devi …..Petitioner |
| Versus |
| State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 4. CWP No.15974 of 2026 |
| Anju …..Petitioner |
| Versus |
| State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 5. CWP No.15975 of 2026 | 2 |
|
|---|---|---|
| Vijay Kumar Verma | …..Petitioner | |
| Versus | ||
| State of H.P. and another | .....Respondents | |
| -------------------------------------- 6. CWP No.15978 of 2026 |
----------------- |
------------------------------ |
| Ajay Kumar and others | …..Petitioners | |
| Versus | ||
| State of H.P. and another | .....Respondents | |
| -------------------------------------- 7. CWP No.15979 of 2026 |
----------------- |
------------------------------ |
| Rajeev Kumar and another | …..Petitioners | |
| Versus | ||
| State of H.P. and another | .....Respondents | |
| -------------------------------------- 8. CWP No.15982 of 2026 |
----------------- |
------------------------------ |
| Veena Devi | …..Petitioner | |
| Versus | ||
| State of H.P. and others | .....Respondents | |
| -------------------------------------- 9. CWP No.15983 of 2026 |
----------------- |
------------------------------ |
| Nikke Ram | …..Petitioner | |
| Versus | ||
| State of H.P. and others -------------------------------------- |
----------------- | .....Respondents ------------------------------ |
3
| 10. CWP No.15984 of 2026 Surjeet Kumar and another |
…..Petitioners |
|---|---|
| Versus | |
| State of H.P. and others ------------------------------------------------------- |
.....Respondents ------------------------------ |
| 11. CWP No.15986 of 2026 | |
| Bijali | …..Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State of H.P. and others |
.....Respondents |
| ------------------------------------------------------- 12. CWP No.16003 of 2026 |
------------------------------ |
| Suman Kumari and others | …..Petitioners |
| Versus | |
| State of H.P. and others | .....Respondents |
| ------------------------------------------------------- 13. CWP No.16018 of 2026 |
------------------------------ |
| Rekha Devi Tomar | …..Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State of H.P. and others |
.....Respondents |
| ------------------------------------------------------- Coram |
------------------------------ |
| Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua | |
| Whether approved for reporting?1 |
1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.
4
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate, in CWP No.15941 of 2026.
Mr. Bhupinder Thakur, Advocate, in CWP No.15971 of 2026.
Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate, in CWP Nos.15973 to 15975, 15978, 15979, 15982 to 15984 and 15986 of 2026.
Mr. M.A. Safee, Mr. Pranav Kaushal and Mr. Sameer Miyan, Advocates, in CWP Nos.16003 and 16018 of 2026.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Petitioners seek applicability of Ghanshyam
Dass and Ors Vs. State of H.P. and Ors2 .
2. Learned Additional Advocate General has
apprised that the aforesaid decision has been stayed under order dated 17.08.2026 passed in LPA No.205 of 2025 and other connected matters .
3. In view of above position, the relief in the nature claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted to them at this stage. These writ petitions, therefore, are disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the respective cases of the petitioners within six weeks after the adjudication of LPA No.205 of 2025 and in terms thereof.
2 CWP No.2056 of 2023 decided alongwith connected matters on 21.03.2024
5
The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any.
September 15, 2026 Mukesh
Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow petitioners to benefit from Ghanshyam Dass judgment given it is under stay
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ghanshyam Dass and Ors vs. State of H.P. and OrsReferred¶14
Ghanshyam Dass and Ors Vs. State of H.P. and Ors
Nirmla Devi and others
Dilbag Singh and another
Punam Devi
Anju
Vijay Kumar Verma
Ajay Kumar and others
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
