Decided On: 02.11.2023 vs Hpsebl
2023 Latest Caselaw 17360 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 8320 of 2023 Decided on: 02.11.2023 Balwan Singh ........Petitioner

.

                                Versus





    HPSEBL                                     .......Respondent
    Coram

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN SHARMA, JUDGE WHETHER APPROVED FOR REPORTING?

For the petitioner : Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Raj Pal Thakur, Advocate.

    Ranjan Sharma, (Oral)

               The
                r             to
                         petitioner,   being    a    post      1.1.2016

retiree, (as Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical on

31.03.2017) has filed the instant writ petition, with the

following prayers:-

"i) That the respondent Board may kindly be

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 interest there on @ 9% from the date it became due till the amount is actually paid;

ii) That the respondent-Board may kindly be directed to release the differential amount of communication and revised Gratuity at

Annexure P-2 immediately in one installment alongwith interest @ 9%.

2. Case of the petitioner, as submitted by the

.

learned 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, revising the pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and

consequently, the accruing retiral benefits were to be

released to the petitioner. It is submitted that the

Respondent-Board was duty bound to grant the benefit(s)

of the arrears of revised pay fixation to the petitioner for

the period w.e.f. 1.1.2016 till the date of retirement on

30.09.2021 and the benefit of revised retiral benefits i.e.

Revised Pension, Revised Gratuity, Revised Leave

Encashment and Revised Commuted pension to the

petitioner-retiree.

3. 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

31.03.2017, as yet; and secondly though the revised PPO,

giving the Revised Pension has been issued on 12.10.2022

(Annexure P-1), but the admissible Arrears of Revised

Pension w.e.f. 1.4.2017 till June 2023 and thereafter has

not been released till day; and thirdly, as per Annexure P-2,

dated 17.10.2022 though the Revised Gratuity has been

.

sanctioned but actual monetary benefits has not been

released till day; and fourthly, the Revised Leave

Encashment and Revised Commuted Pension has neither

been assessed/sanctioned nor these benefits have been

released to the petitioners till day.

4.

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, which reads as under:-

6. "Having regard to the reasons assigned in the said order and since the case of the

petitioner in the instant case is also on the similar footing, the instant writ

petition is also allowed by directing the respondents to pay arrears of pay as per

the revision of the pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 30.11.2020 with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till the date of its realization as per Annexure P-2. A further direction is also issued to the respondents to revise the pension,

gratuity (DCRG) and leave encashment, as per Annexure P-2 and to pay the same alongwith interest @ 6% per annum to the petitioner w.e.f. the due date i.e.

.

01.12.2020, till the date of its realization."

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rajan Kahol,

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the

judgment in case of Bhagat Ram (Supra), has not attained

finality, as the HRTC-Respondent therein, has filed a

Review Petition, which is pending listing/hearing.

6. Faced with this situation, the Learned

Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that

the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, this Court permits

him to make a representation to the competent authority

for claiming the above benefits. The prayer being

innocuous is not opposed and needs to be granted.

7. Accordingly, as prayed for, by the Learned

Counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner

to make a representation, to the Respondent No.1-

Executive Director H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd within

three weeks from today; with further directions to the

aforesaid Respondent, to decide the representation of the

petitioner within six weeks thereafter, in the light of the

judgment passed by this Court in case of Bhagat Ram

(supra).

8. Needless to say that, this Court has not

.

adverted to the rival contentions/merits of the matter and

all questions of facts as well as law are left open.

The Instant writ petition as well as, the pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of,

accordingly.

                  r          to          (Ranjan Sharma)

                                              Judge
    November 2, 2023
       (himani)