Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mast Ram vs Himachal Pradesh State ... on 19 October, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
Civil Writ Petition No.2983 of 2019
Date of Decision: 19.10.2023
_____________________________________________________________________
Mast Ram
.........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd.
and Anr.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.C. Sankhayan and Mr. T.C. Sharma,
Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Peeyush Rathore, Advocate.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:
"i) That the Respondent Board may kindly be directed to process
pension papers and allow pension to the applicant w.e.f. Jan,
2018 in accordance with the decision of Apex Court dated 8th
March, 2018 (Annexure A-2) in a time bound manner along with
interest and its consequential benefits according to CCS (Pen)
Rules, 1972.
(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the
pensionary /retiral benefits and also arrear of monthly pension
to the applicant w.e.f. 1st January, 2018, along with interest from
due date till actual payment."
2. Though prayer made in the instant petition has been
.
seriously opposed by respondents No. 1 and 2 by way of filing reply to
the petition, but before case at hand, could be heard and dsecided on
its own merits, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited attention of
this court to the judgment dated 11.10.2023, passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in LPA No. 196 of 2022, titled Roop Lal v. State
of Himachal Pradesh and others, wherein Division Bench of this
Court has held that when it comes to granting the benefit of counting
service rendered on daily wage for the purpose of pension to class III
employees, there is no significant aspect in which persons concerned
are distinguishable from Class IV employees. Such claim with respect
to counting of service as rendered on daily wage basis before
Regularization/ grant of work charge status towards qualifying service
for grant of pension in respect of Class-III employees is also required
to be considered in the same and similar manner as is done in the
case of Class-IV employees.
3. Having perused aforesaid judgment sought to be relied
upon in its entirety vis-à-vis issue raised in the petition at hand, this
Court has no hesitation to conclude that case at hand is squarely
covered by the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court and as such, no prejudice, if any, would be caused to either
of the party in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider
and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Roop Lal (supra).
4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is
.
disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider and decide
case of the petitioner in light of Roop Lal (supra), expeditiously,
preferably, within four weeks. In case, petitioner is found to be
similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would
be extended similar benefits. Needless to say, authority concerned
while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking
order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate
proceedings before appropriate court of law, if he still remains
aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of.
October 19, 2023 (Sandeep Sharma),
manjit Judge
