No.1, said respondent is ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another. This writ petition
"In view of above discussion, petitioner's claim for
retrospective promotion to the post of Planning &
Development Officer w.e.f. 01.09.2014 is held to be not
tenable. However, respondent-University is directed to
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2025:HHC:12197
release the pay and allowance alongwith consequential
benefits to the petitioner for discharging the duties of
Planning & Development Officer w.e.f. 12.11.2014 to
31.03.2015, within a period of six weeks from today."
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2015 while
discharging the duties of Planning & Development Officer. Despite
this fact, the petitioner is not being paid the pension on the basis of
the last pay drawn by him while performing his duties as Planning &
Development Officer, but his pension has been determined on the
basis of actual post held by him. Learned Senior Counsel submitted
that in the light of the judgment passed by this Court, in terms
whereof, the respondent-University was directed to release the pay
and allowances alongwith consequential benefits to the petitioner for
discharging the duties of Planning & Development Officer w.e.f.
12.11.2014 to 31.03.2015, the intent of the Court was very clear
that this included the pensionary benefits also because the
pensionary benefits obviously come within "consequential benefits".
Learned Senior Counsel also referred to the CCS (Pension) Rules,
which were prevailing at the time when the petitioner retired and by
referring to the CCS (Pension) Rule 49 (2), learned Senior Counsel
submitted that in terms thereof, the pension obviously has to be
calculated by taking the average of all emoluments whichever are
2025:HHC:12197
beneficial to the employee and therefore also, the intent is that the
pension has to be calculated by taking into consideration the last
emoluments as were being drawn by a retiring incumbent and by
referring to the definition of the word 'emoluments' in Section 33 as
well as 'average emoluments' learned Senior Counsel has submitted
that there is no ambiguity, in terms thereof, as to what is to be the
basis for determining the pension of a retiring officer.
3. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be said that there
is any willful disobedience of the directions passed by the Court in
CWPOA No.5378 of 2019, by the respondents by not calculating the
pension of the petitioner on the basis of salary of the post of
Planning & Development Officer.
4. A perusal of the judgment passed by this Court
demonstrates that the claim raised by the petitioner was that the
respondent-University be directed to promote him to the post of
Planning & Development Officer. According to the petitioner, the
University was extracting the work of Planning & Development
Officer from him w.e.f. 12.11.2014 till he superannuated on
31.03.2015.
5. To cut the issue short, Hon'ble Coordinate Bench of this
Court while deciding the writ petition, dismissed the prayer of the
2025:HHC:12197
petitioner for retrospective promotion to the post of Planning &
Development Officer w.e.f. 01.09.2014. Hon'ble Coordinate Bench
was pleased to direct that for the interregnum, i.e. 12.11.2014 to
31.03.2015, the petitioner be paid the pay and allowances
alongwith consequential benefits for discharging the duties of
Planning & Development Officer.
6. This Court is of the considered view that on the strength
of this observation of the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench, it cannot be
said that any mandamus was issued or can be construed to have
been issued in law or otherwise that after his retirement the pension
of the petitioner was to be calculated on the basis of the salary that
was payable to a Planning & Development Officer. In fact, all that the
Hon'ble Coordinate was pleased to order was that as it was the
grievance of the petitioner that despite the fact that w.e.f. 12.11.2014
to 31.03.2015, the work of Planning & Development Officer was
extracted from him by the University, yet he was paid the wages of
the post he was otherwise holding and therefore, the University was
directed to compensate the petitioner by paying him the pay and
allowances alongwith consequential benefits of the post of which the
work was performed by him w.e.f. 12.11.2014 to 31.03.2015.
7. It is not the case of the petitioner that after the
judgment of this Court, the University has not released the pay and
2025:HHC:12197
allowances alongwith consequential benefits of the post of Planning
& Development Officer w.e.f. 12.11.2014 to 31.03.2015. In fact, in
case the contention of the petitioner as is being raised by learned
Senior Counsel is accepted, then it may lead to a situation wherein
any person on the verge of superannuation can be ordered or
otherwise called upon to perform the duties of a higher post and
after rendering such duties for 72 hours, 48 hours and 24 hours as
the case may be and thereafter, such an incumbent shall be
demanding pension on the basis of the pay of the higher post, duties
whereof were being performed by him, when he superannuated. This
defeats the very purpose of promotion etc. because otherwise also, in
case what is being contended by learned Senior Counsel is deemed
to be a willful disobedience of the judgment passed by the Court,
then what the petitioner did not directly get from the Hon'ble
Coordinate Bench, he shall be getting in these proceedings.
8. Accordingly, in the light of above observations, this
Court does not finds any merit in the present proceedings, as there
is no willful disobedience of the judgment passed by this Court and
the same are closed. Notices stand discharged.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
May 02, 2025
(Rishi)
2025:HHC:12197
