Disposed

Narayan Dutt (Since Deceased) through His Wife Shanti Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Sept 2026EX.P./2564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the denial of pension benefits. The respondents initially contended that the petitioner's total service of 9 years and 8 months fell short of the required 9 years and 9 months. However, the petitioner argued that under Sunder Singh, pension is admissible for more than 8 years of service. During pendency, the respondents passed a fresh consideration order dated 11.09.2026 granting the benefit. The court disposed of the petition directing the respondents to release the consequential benefits within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to release benefits under the consideration order dated 11.09.2026 within four weeks.

Narayan Dutt (Since Deceased)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

Ex. Pet. No. 2564/2025 Decided on: 16.09.2026

¶3

Narayan Dutt …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P & Ors. .…Respondents.

¶6

Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the petitioner:

¶10

Mr. Bonit Parkash, Advocate.

¶11

Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents

¶12

For the respondents:

¶13

Ms. Kamlesh Shandil, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶15

Following order was passed in the matter on

¶16

21.08.2026, noticing the grievance of the petitioner: -

¶17

“Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed reply inter alia pleadings therein that late Shri Narayan Dutt had to his credit 07 years and 08 months of regular service. Addition of daily wage service in accordance with law laid down in Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Civil Appeal No. 6309/2017, decided on 08.03.2018) would make his total service at 09 years and 08 months. According to the respondents, such service is less then 09 years and 09 months as required under the rules and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner justifiably raises the grievance that in terms of Sunder Singh pension would be admissible in case of more than 08 years of service.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

Learned Additional Advocate General seeks two weeks further time to place on record fresh instructions/ file reply. List on 16.09.2026.”

¶21

Pursuant to the above, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 15.09.2026 from the Executive Engineer, Shillai (B&R) Division, HPPWD, Shillai, conveying that a fresh consideration order has been passed in the case of the petitioner on 11.09.2026. The said consideration order has also been appended with the office instructions.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh consideration order dated 11.09.2026 has redressed the grievance of the petitioner, however, the respondents be directed to release the benefits flowing to the petitioner under the said consideration order within a time-bound schedule.

¶23

In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful by releasing the benefits flowing to the petitioner under the aforesaid consideration order within a period of four weeks. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of any surviving grievance, if any, in accordance with law.

¶24

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶25

16^th September, 2026(rohit)

Narayan Dutt (Since Deceased) through His Wife Shanti Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Dutt (Since Deceased) through His Wife Shanti Devi v. the 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