IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10546/2025 Decided on: 18.07.2025 Satnam Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Bonit Parkash, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to grant him pension w.e.f. 01.09.2015 with all incidental benefits thereof. 2. Gist of petitioner’s case was noticed in the following order passed in the matter on 04.07.2025: - “Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. Petitioner, aged 70 years, is aggrieved by the denial of pension to him. Annexure P-2 dated 29.10.2024, issued from the office of respondent No.4, was addressed to the Silk Seed Production, Dehra, District Kangra, raising certain queries. The petitioner’s grievance is that his pension case has not been taken to its logical conclusion. Respondents No.1 to 3 on one hand and respondent No.4 on the other are merely corresponding with each other, and in the process, the petitioner’s interests are being jeopardized. Let learned counsel for the respondents to have instructions about settling the pension case of the petitioner. List on 16.07.2025. If any clarification is required, the same may be exchanged inter se between the respondents during the interregnum for settling the case of the petitioner.” 3. Pursuant thereto, learned Deputy Advocate General placed on record office instructions dated 17.07.2025 from the Director of Industries Himachal Pradesh and submitted that the said office instructions be taken as stand of the respondents-State to the writ petition. 4. In terms of the office instructions: - (i) The petitioner was granted work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2002 vide office order dated 23.12.2023 in compliance to the decision rendered in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surajmani2. 2 LPA No.165/2021 decided a/w connected matter on 12.01.2023 3 (ii) Service of the petitioner as Mali/Beldar was regularized on 31.07.2006 and his case is covered under the provisions of National Pension Scheme (NPS), for having completed 09 years, 1 month of regular service. (iii) Petitioner has not opted for Old Pension Scheme (OPS) introduced vide notification dated 04.05.2023 and it is for this reason, the petitioner is getting the pension under NPS and not under OPS. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a retired Class-IV employee, presently aged 70 years. He was not aware about any requirement for exercising option to avail pension under the OPS. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to exercise the option within any stipulated time and his case for grant of pension under OPS be directed to be considered by the respondents in terms of Reshmo Devi Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3, operative part of which, reads as under: - “5. In view of above, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme and the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 in terms of Notification dated 04.05.2023 and Office Memorandum dated 04.05.2023 within a period of four weeks. While considering the case, observations made above shall be kept in view. The case of the petitioner for grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme shall not be rejected only for the reason 3 CWP No. 11004/2025 decided on 10.07.2025 4 that she could not exercise her option within the cut-off period mentioned in the Office Memorandum dated 04.05.2023. Copy of decision so taken be communicated to the petitioner……..” Office instructions are further to the effect that the respondents are in the process of giving due credit for counting four years of work charge service rendered by the petitioner towards the pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that in relation to petitioner’s pension case, a query raised by the office of respondent No.4-Accountant General under communication dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) has not been responded by respondents No.1 to 3 as yet. This needs to be appropriately addressed by the State before settling petitioner’s pension case 5. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to appropriately respond within two weeks to respondent No.4’s office letter dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner’s case be also considered, in accordance with law, for counting the work charge service rendered by him towards pensionary benefits and for grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme (the CCS Pension Rules) in light of Reshmo Devi3 within six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. 5 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th July, 2025(rohi