IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10384 of 2024 Decided on 12th May, 2026 Parvez Iqbal and others …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Ms. Aanchal Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Ajay Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. That the respondent may kindly be directed to Control the pension, gratuity, and other services benefit of the petitioner at the Directorate level as per Himachal Pradesh Municipality Employees (Pension, Gratuity and General Provident Fund) Rules, 2000. II. That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the revised pension, gratuity, DCRG and GPF as per the notification dated 25.02.2022 HP civil services revised rules to the petitioners along with arrears thereof in a time bound manner, as has been paid to the other employees of the State Government. III. That the respondents may kindly be directed to remove the anomaly of pay, pension, gratuity and other service benefits irrespective of working in any Municipalities. IV. That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay SEP same and similar amount of pension, gratuity and GPF in terms of Rules, 2000 to the employees of respondent, department who are working in Municipalities. V. That the petitioners are entitled for medical reimbursement as per the medical reimbursement rules hence, the respondents may be directed to pay the medical reimbursement of the petitioner by making a special budgetary provision for the interest of justice.” 2. There are nine petitioners in all; some of them were more than 70 years old when they approached the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to office memorandum dated 19.06.2025 issued by Principal Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under:- “1. In continuation to this Department's Office Memorandum No. Fin(Pen)A(3)-1/2021-Part-11- Loose dated 17.09.2022 and the Office Memoranda No. Fin(Pen)A(3)-1/2021-Part-II dated 13.03.2024, 28.08.2024 and 19.10.2024 on the subject cited above, the undersigned is directed to say that the Governor, Himachal Pradesh is pleased to decide that the 50% of the balance arrears (i.e. 30% of total pension/family pension arrears) to the Government pensioners and family pensioners who have attained the age of 70 years and above will be paid in the month of June, 2025. Now, cumulative arrears paid, after taking into account the present release, shall be 70% of the total arrears in respect of these Government pensioners and family pensioners. 2. All the Pension Disbursing Authorities (PDA) including Banks will ensure that any extra amount of pension, family pension, if recoverable, shall be adjusted from the arrears of pension/family pension being paid to them and only the balance amount is released. 3. It shall be responsibility of the Pension Disbursing Authorities including 20 Public Sector Banks that arrears as detailed in para-1 above, are drawn and disbursed to the petitioners and family pensioners who have attained the age of 70 years and above in the month of June 2025.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners who as on the cut-off date mentioned therein were above 70 years of age, they be given the benefit of this office memorandum. Qua the others, she submits that the petition be disposed of with direction that the outcome of Madhu Deshta’s case which is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Division Bench shall be binding upon the parties. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the petition as well as relief clause therein as also the miscellaneous application relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners and the office memorandum appended therewith, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioners, who had attained the age of 70 years in the month of June, 2025 be given the benefit of office memorandum dated 19.06.2025, if applicable to them otherwise, in terms of the contents thereof. As far as those petitioners are concerned, who do not get the benefit of said office memorandum as they were not of 70 years or above as in the month of June, 2025, the issues raised by them in this petition shall be governed by the outcome of Madhu Deshta’s case pending before the Hon’ble Division Bench. 5. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 12, 2026 (Vinod)