Himachal Pradesh High Court
Deepinder Singh vs H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd on 1 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.9651 of 2023
Decided on: 1st December, 2023
__________________________________________________________
.
Deepinder Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd,
Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla-4.
......Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner:
rt Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner, a retiree, having retired from the post of Assistant Engineer (E) on 30.11.2019, has filed the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the respondent Board may kindly directed to release the amount of arrears of pay and pension, leave encashment which became due as a result of revision of pay scales w.e.f.
1.1.2016 at once in one installment alongwith 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2023 20:33:58 :::CIS -2-interest there on @ 9% from the date it became due till the amount is actuall paid;
(ii) That the respondent Board may kindly be .
directed to release the differential amount of revised Gratuity at Annexure P-3 immediately in one installment alongwith interest @ 9%."
3. Case of the petitioner, as submitted by the learned of counsel, is that the Respondent-Board has framed the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd (Revised Pay) Regulations, 2022, as per Notification dated 12.04.2022, rt revising the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consequent upon the issuance of notification dated 12.04.2022 Respondent-Board was duty bound to grant the benefit(s) of (i) revised pay scale, pay fixation and arrear for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the date of retirement; and (ii) benefit of revised retiral benefits i.e. Revised Pension, Revised Gratuity, Revised Leave Encashment and Revised Commuted Pension to the petitioners-retirees.
4. Learned Counsel further submits that firstly, the Respondent-Board has not released the arrears of pay for the ::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2023 20:33:58 :::CIS -3- period from 1.1.2016 till his retirement on 30.11.2019, as yet;
He further submits that secondly though the revised PPO, giving the Revised Pension has been issued on .
24.09.2022 Annexure P-1, but in fact, the admissible Arrears of Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2016 till date, and even the Revised Leave Encashment has not been released as yet; and thirdly, as per Annexure P-3, dated 30.09.2022 though the of Revised Gratuity has been sanctioned but actual monetary benefits has not been released till day; and fourthly, the rt Revised Leave Encashment and Revised Commuted Pension has neither been assessed/sanctioned nor these benefits have been released to the petitioners till day.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in CWP No. 2108 of 2023, titled as Bhagat Ram vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others, decided on 31.05.2023, whereby this Court has mandated the respondents to release the arrears of pay as well as revised retiral benefits alongwith arrears with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till its realization. He also relied upon the judgment in CWP No.7359 of 2021, titled as ::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2023 20:33:58 :::CIS -4- Amita Gupta Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 01.12.2022 for giving Revised Leave Encashment.
.
6. Per contra, Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned Counsel for the respondent, states that the judgment in case of Bhagat Ram has not been attained finality, as the Respondent-Corporation has filed a review petition, seeking of review of the judgment passed in case of Bhagat Ram (supra), which is likely to be listed for admission hearing any rt time hereinafter.
7. Faced with this situation, at this stage, Mr. Parkash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case this Court permits him to make a representation for ventilating his claim(s), after taking into account the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2108 of 2023, titled as Bhagat Ram Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others, decided on 31.05.2023 and judgment in CWP No.7359 of 2021, titled as Amita Gupta Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra) in a time bound manner. The request ::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2023 20:33:58 :::CIS -5- being innocuous, is not opposed by Mr. Ravinder Thakur, learned opposing counsel also and needs to be granted.
Ordered accordingly.
.
8. Accordingly, in peculiar facts and circumstances, and as per the request so made, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation to Respondent No.1- Executive Director (Personnel) H.P. State Electricity Board of Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Shimla giving all details/material-
particulars, within six weeks from today; with further rt directions to aforesaid respondent to examine/consider the case of the petitioner and then to pass appropriate orders, within four weeks thereafter, in accordance with law
9. It is made clear, that this Court, has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all Questions of facts and law are left open.
In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge December 01, 2023 (himani) ::: Downloaded on - 04/12/2023 20:33:58 :::CIS