2025:HHC:14464 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.7647 of 2020 Reserved on: 07.05.2025 Date of Decision: 19.05.2025 Pritam Chand (since deceased) through his LRs ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to revise/settle the pension of the applicant as of Mason instead of beldar and release the due and admissible arrears of the applicant from the date of he is entitled for along with interest. b) That the respondents may kindly further be directed to release the arrears of pension to the applicant with interest from the date the pension fell due till its realization and also pay all oner consequential benefits and all other monetary benefits for which the applicant is entitled.” 2 3. The petitioner has raised the grievance that though he has retired as Mason, but the respondents have wrongly granted the pension of the grade of Beldars to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has retired as Mason in the year 2013. The respondents have taken a specific stance that the pension has been granted to petitioner as Mason by taking his grade pay Rs.2,400/-, which was applicable to the category of Mason. The amount of pension has been calculated in accordance with Rules. The calculation sheet has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. It has further been contended that the category of Beldar had been allowed initial grade of Rs.1,300/- in the revised pay scale w.e.f .01.01.2006 and thereafter Rs.1,650/- after rendering two years regular service in the grade. According to the respondents, the initial grade pay of category of Mason was Rs.1,900/- and after rendering two years service, it was Rs.2500/-. It has also been clarified that the category of Beldar was never placed in the grade pay of Rs.2,400/-. 5. The petitioner has not been able to controvert the stand taken by the respondents. It is not his case that he was drawing more than Rs.2,400/- grade pay per month at the time of his retirement. The office of Accountant General has also calculated the pension of the petitioner on the same basis as is 3 evident from a copy of PPO issued in favour of petitioner on 22nd October, 2013. 6. Thus, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his claim. On the other hand, the respondents have justified their action. 7. In result, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. ( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge May 19, 2025 (vt)