Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 18461 HP
Judgement Date : 28 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No.7701 of 2023
Decided on: 28th November, 2023
.
____________________________________________________________
Balwant Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
......Respondents
of
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
rt
For the Petitioner: Mr. Parkash Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate
General, for respondents No.1 to 3-
State.
Mr. Chitranjan K. Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No.4-Account General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional
Advocate General and Mr. Chitranjan K. Sharma, learned
counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of
respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ
petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of the
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
orders intended to be passed hereinafter.
3. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition,
praying for the following relief:-
.
"That the respondents may kindly be directed to
count service as qualifying service of petitioner towards pension with effect from 7.12.2012
whereby granted daily wages status followed by regularization without interruption and consequently they may be held entitled to
of pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) rules, 1972, with all consequential benefits."
4. rt Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that he has
not completed eight years of qualifying service by clubbing the
regular and daily wages service even in terms of mandate of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi
also, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for pension, on the
basis thereof.
5. Today (28.11.2023) during the course of hearing,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in
CWP(T) No.3718 of 2018, titled as Lahia Ram Versus State of
H.P. and others, reported in 2010 (7) SLR 217 [taken on
record] and in terms of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner
prays that his case may be considered for grant of pension etc.
6. Per contra, Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Chitranjan K
Sharma, learned counsel, submit that so far as the pension
based on the mandate of Sunder Singh and Balo Devi is
.
concerned, the petitioner admittedly, is not eligible and,
therefore, his claim cannot be considered. So far as the claim
now raised on the basis of judgment in Lahia Ram (Supra) and
as requested by Mr. Parkash Sharma, learned counsel for the
of petitioner, on instructions, this Court permits the petitioner to
make a representation to respondent No.2-Director, Higher rt Education, Himachal Pradesh, within three weeks from today;
with further directions to the aforesaid respondent and to pass
appropriate offers, within two months thereafter.
7. It is clarified 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.
As aforesaid, the writ petition as well as the pending
miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also sand disposed of,
accordingly.
(Ranjan Sharma) Judge November 28, 2023 (Bhardwaj)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!