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
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
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
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
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
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)
