Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Kamla Devi Vs State of Hp and Ors. — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of by adopting, with regard to the petitioner's right to receive pension, the findings and all directions of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in CWPOA No.3221 of 2019 (Baldev Ram v. State of H.P. and others), construed to have been passed in the present case mutatis mutandis; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also disposed of accordingly. (Gratuity had already been paid during pendency.)

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's 22 years of service undergone in the corporation before her absorption and 8 years' service after her absorption (total 31 years) should be counted for grant of retirement benefits. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

With regard to the petitioner's right to receive pension, the findings returned by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench in CWPOA No.3221 of 2019 (Baldev Ram v. State of H.P. and others) shall be construed to have been passed in the present case also, and all the directions passed therein shall be construed to have been passed mutatis mutandis in the present case; on this basis the petition stands disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (Ajay Mohan Goel, J., oral) disposed of CWP No.6748 of 2021, Smt. Kamla Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, on 18.04.2026. The petitioner, absorbed from a corporation into government service, had sought (i) quashing of Annexure P-6 denying her benefits before absorption, (ii) counting of her 22 years of pre-absorption corporation service together with 8 years' post-absorption service (total 31 years) for retirement benefits, and (iii) grant of pension under the old CCS Pension Rules on the ground that she was appointed in 1987, before 2003, with consequential benefits. Learned counsel informed the Court that during pendency the gratuity had been paid and that the pension issue was squarely covered by the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench judgment in CWPOA No.3221 of 2019, Baldev Ram (since deceased) through his LRs. v. State of H.P. and others, decided on 02.03.2026; counsel for respondent No.3 concurred that the issue was so covered. The Court disposed of the petition, recording that with regard to the petitioner's right to receive pension, the findings returned in Baldev Ram shall be construed to have been passed in the present case also and all directions passed therein shall be construed to have been passed mutatis mutandis in the present case; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. No independent findings were returned by this Court on the service-counting or Annexure P-6 prayers.

2026:HHC:12481-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.6748 of 2021

Decided on: 18.04.2026

Smt. Kamla Devi … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Anil Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Sushant Vir Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia , prayed for the following reliefs:-

“ a. That the impugned annexure P-6 denying her benefits before her absorption may be quashed and set aside.

b. That the Respondents may kindly be directed to count her 22 years of service undergone in the corporation before her absorption and 8 years' service after her absorption for grant of retirement benefits, thus total 31 year of service.

c. That Respondent be directed to grant her pension under old CCS Pension Rules as she is appointed in the year 1987 thus before the year 2003 and thus directed to provide all consequential benefits as per rules.

d. Respondents may be directed to count her all entire actual service rendered by here along-with all

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

2

2026:HHC:12481-DB

consequential benefits. ”

Learned Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that during the pendency of the petition the gratuity stands paid to the petitioner and as far as the issue raised by her qua grant of pension is concerned, the same is now squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CWPOA No.3221 of 2019, titled Baldev Ram (since deceased) through his LRs. Versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 02.03.2026.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 has also submitted that the issue indeed is covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this Court.

In light of this fact, this petition is disposed of that with regard to the right of the petitioner to receive the pension, the findings returned by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench in CWPOA No.3221 of 2019, titled Baldev Ram (since deceased) through his LRs. Versus State of H.P. and others (supra), shall be construed to have been passed in the present case also and all the direction passed therein shall be construed to have been mutatus mutandi passed in the present case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

April 18, 2026 (Rishi)