IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5590 of 2022 Decided on 24th April 2026 Kewal Krishan …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents to extend the benefits of Merger of 50% Dearness Allowance with Basic Pay to the petitioner, as per instructions of 10-6-2005 with applicable rate of interest w.e.f 1.4.2004 alongwith arrears and re- affixed the pay/ Retirement Benefits of the petitioner accordingly, with the further directions to the respondents to Revise and Release the Pension of the petitioner being pre-2006 pensioner, strictly as 2 per the Office Memorandum dated 21st May 2013 (Annexure P/3), qua Revision of pre-2006 pensioner, alongwith all consequential benefits, including arrears alongwith interest@ 12% per annum, in the interest of justice.” 2. The stand taken in the reply filed by the State is that the petition is misconceived as in light of the fact that the petitioner had not completed 33 years of qualifying service as on the date of his superannuation, pensionary benefits have been paid to him as payable to pre 2006 retirees on pro rata basis by taking into consideration the number of years’ service rendered by him i.e., 21 years. 3. In this backdrop, on the last date of hearing i.e., 16.04.2026, the following order was passed:- “Heard for some time. Primarily, in light of the reply filed by the State, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case be taken up after some time, so that he can have instructions from the petitioner. List on 24.04.2026, as prayed for.” 4. The petitioner has sought a mandamus that the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of merger of 50% dearness allowance with basic pay to the petitioner as per instructions of Department of Finance (regulations) dated 3 10.06.2005, with applicable rate of interest alongwith arrears and other consequential benefits in terms of the prayer clause. 5. Annexure R-3/1 appended with the reply filed by the respondent-State, dated 07.01.2006 demonstrates that the pensionary benefits of the petitioner were revised on the basis of the HP Government Finance Deptt. OM No.(Pen)B(10)6/98-1 dated 08.08.2005. This is an admitted position and is not in dispute. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not being paid full pension, to which, he is entitled to. 7. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the petitioner had not put in 33 years of service when he superannuated, obviously, he was entitled to only pro rata pension in light of the number of years of service rendered by him with the Department. This has been done in terms of Annexure R-3/1 and, obviously, the filing of this petition is under a misconception that needful has not been done in the case of the petitioner, in light of what he was entitled to. 4 8. Further, with regard to the grievance of the petitioner qua non-implementation of office memorandum dated Annexure P-3, dated 21.03.2013, the same has also been answered in the reply filed by the respondents in terms of Annexure R-3/2. Perusal of the same demonstrates that as the consolidated pension being paid to the petitioner as on 01.01.2006 was more than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding revised pay band + grade pay w.e.f. 01.04.2013, therefore, on this count also there was no need to further revise the pension of the petitioner. These facts could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Thus, as the Court is satisfied with the explanation given by the State, the present petition is dismissed as being without merit. 10. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 24, 2026 (Vinod)