Himachal Pradesh High Court
_________________________________________________________ vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 1 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.10899 of 2023
Decided on: 1st January, 2024
_________________________________________________________
Vidya Bharanta
....Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.
......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting?
of
For the petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondents:
rt Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate
General.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge (Oral)
Notice. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy
Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on
behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ
petition is taken up for disposal, at this stage, in view of
the order(s) intended to be passed herein.
3. The petitioner, having retired from the post of
Health Supervisor on 31.12.2018 from Medical
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Rohru, H.P, has filed the
instant writ petition, with the following prayer(s):-
"i) That the writ in the nature of
.
mandamus or other writ, order or
direction, directing the respondent to
pay arrear of pay as per revision of pay
scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 with interest @
6% per annum from the due date till the
of
date of its realization and they shall also
pay the arrear of revise pension, revised
gratuity, revised leave encashment and
rt revised commuted pension, alongwith
interest @ 6% per annum till the date of
its realizations."
4. Case of the petitioner is that the respondents-
State issued the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised)
Pay Rules, 2022, as per Notification dated 3rd January,
2022, Annexure P-1, revising the pay scales of employees
w.e.f. 01.01.2016; and as per Notification dated
25.02.2022 the Respondents decided to give retiral
benefits to its pensioners w.e.f. 01.01.2016 onwards.
5. Learned counsel further submits that firstly,
respondents have not released the arrears of pay for the
period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till the date of retirement;
secondly, as per Notification dated 25.02.2022, the
respondents have not released the Revised Benefits i.e.
.
Revised Leave Encashment, Revised Commuted Pension,
Retiral Benefits and Revised Pension to the petitioner till
day; and thirdly, the petitioner is entitled for interest @ 6%
or such other rate of interest on delayed payment of
of
aforesaid claims-dues benefits from due date till
realization. rt
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
mentioned details of the pending arrears of the petitioner
in Para 4 of the writ petition, which are as under:-
Sr. No. Details of Arrear Balance Paid
1. Arrear of revised pay 3,08,200/- 50,000/-
scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016
to 31.12.2020
2. Arrear of revised 60,719/- 15,180/-
pension w.e.f.
01.01.2021 to
31.01.2022
3. Arrear of Gratuity 3,58,300/- 10,89,575/-
4. Arrear of Earned leave 1,31,660/- 7,45,840/-
encashment
5. Arrear of Commuted 9,14,515/- 5,92,265/-
pension
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance, on the judgment passed by this Court, in
CWP No.5651 of 2023, tilted as Dr. Sunil Kumar
Chandel and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, decided on 26.09.2023, CWP No.7895 of
.
2023, titled as Krishan Lal & others Versus State of
H.P. & others, decided on 18.10.2023. He also placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in CWP No.7359 of 2021, titled as Amita
of
Gupta versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
decided on 01.12.2022, granting the revised leave
rt
encashment on the basis of revised pay. He further
submits that the judgment in case of Amita Gupta (supra)
stands implemented and in CWP No.2108 of 2023 titled
as Bhagat Ram Versus Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and others, decided on 31.05.2023,
Annexure P-3, whereby this Court has mandated the
respondents therein to release the arrears of pay as well as
revised retiral benefits along with arrears with interest @
6% per annum from the due date till its realization.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned
State Counsel appearing for the respondents 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.
9. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for
the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner
shall be satisfied, in case, this Court permits him to make
of
a representation for claiming above benefits. The prayer
being innocuous, is not opposed and needs to be granted.
rt
10. Accordingly, as prayed for, by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the
petitioners to make a representation to respondent No.2-
Director, Directorate of Health Services & family
Welfare/Competent Authority within three weeks from
today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent
to examine/consider the matter and to pass appropriate
orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks
thereafter. Ordered accordingly.
11. Needless to say 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.
of
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
1st January, 2024
(himani)
rt
