Disposed

Rajinder Kumar and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Sept 2026CWP/2347/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought retiral benefits, entry of spouse in service records, and additional increments. All retiral benefits had already been granted, leaving only the request to record petitioner No.2 as wife and nominee for family pension. The court disposed of the petition without examining merits, granting liberty to file a comprehensive representation to the competent authority within four weeks, which must be decided within six weeks thereafter in accordance with law and the judgment in Sandhya Devi v. State of H.P.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file representation within four weeks; authority to decide within six weeks thereafter and communicate decision.

Rajinder Kumar and Another Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.2347 of 2024

¶3

Decided on: 18^th September, 2026

¶4

Rajinder Kumar and another …..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Coram

¶9

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶10

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶11

For the Petitioners: Mr. H.S. Rana, Advocate.

¶12

For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1, 2, 4 and 5-State.

¶13

Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶14

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶15

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of

¶16

following substantive reliefs:-

¶17

“i. That respondents may kindly be directed to release/ make actual payment of all remaining retiral benefits including Gratuity of the Petitioner no.1 along with 9% interest forthwith, for delay on the part of respondents and loss of accretion of capital, from due date till actual payment is made.

¶18

ii. That the respondent may kindly be directed to enter Petitioner no.2 as wife of the Petitioner no.1 in the service book and Family Pension Payment Order may

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

be prepared for grant of Family Pension and other benefits in the interest of justice.

¶22

iii. That respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of Petitioner No.1 for granting the two additional increments on completion of 20 years of service and thereafter arrears alongwith interest may kindly be paid to Petitioner No.1 accordingly.”

¶23

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶24

all the benefits claimed by petitioner No.1 have since been granted to him by the respondents. That grievance in that regard does not survive. The only surviving grievance is in relation to entering the name of petitioner No.2 as his wife and nominee in the service book and Family Pension Payment Order. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners would be satisfied in case they are permitted to make a comprehensive representation to the respondents/ competent authority for the redressal of their aforesaid grievance, which according to them, is covered by Sandhya

¶25

Devi Versus State of H.P. and others² and the said authority is directed to decide the same within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel for the respondents are not averse to this prayer.

¶26

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to

¶27

2 CWP No.16132 of 2026, decided on 17.09.2026

¶28

¶29

prefer a representation to the respondents/competent authority within four weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law and taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners.

¶30

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above

¶31

terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

¶32

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 18, 2026 Judge Mukesh

Rajinder Kumar and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajinder Kumar and Another v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases