Disposed

Rachhpal Singh Dadhwal v. State of Hp and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Sept 2026CWP/3689/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought pensionary benefits including Contributory Pension Scheme, Leave Encashment and Gratuity. Counsel submitted the issue was already decided in Rajinder Singh Randhawa v. State of H.P. The court, without examining merits, directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's case in accordance with law and the cited judgment within six weeks, and communicate the decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents/competent authority to consider and decide petitioner's case in accordance with law and the Rajinder Singh Randhawa judgment within six weeks and communicate the decision.

Rachhpal Singh Dadhwal Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3689 of 2024

¶3

Decided on: 17^th September, 2026

¶4

Rachhpal Singh Dadhwal …..Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of H.P. and another .....Respondents

¶7

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶8

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶9

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶10

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.

¶11

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General.

¶12

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶13

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶14

This writ petition has been filed for the grant of

¶15

following substantive relief:-

¶16

“(I) That the respondent State may kindly be directed to release the benefits of Contributory Pension Scheme, Leave Encashment (300 days), Gratuity and other pensionary benefits etc to the petitioner alongwith 18% interest from the due date.”

¶17

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶18

the issue raised by the petitioner has already been

¶19

adjudicated upon in Rajinder Singh Randhawa and

¶20

others Versus State of H.P. and others² . Learned counsel

¶21

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

¶22

2 CWP No.647 of 2026, decided on 24.06.2026

¶23

¶24

further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide his case in light of above decision within a fixed timeschedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer.

¶25

3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner.

¶26

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶27

any.

¶28

Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 17, 2026 Judge Mukesh

Rachhpal Singh Dadhwal v. State of Hp and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachhpal Singh Dadhwal v. State of Hp and Another

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