IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1630/2022 Decided on: 01.09.2025 Balwant 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. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3 & 5-State. None for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(a) Order Ann-P-3, denying the claim of pension to the petitioner may kindly be quashed. (b) The respondents may please to directed to release due and admissible pension to the petitioner, alongwith arrears thereof alongwith 12% rate of interest per annum, with effect from the date the same fell due, till the realization thereof.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. Following order was passed in the matter on 08.11.2024: - “Learned vice counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the instant case and reliefs prayed for by the petitioner are covered in terms of the decision rendered in Ghindro Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Learned vice counsel further submits that the petitioner is also entitled to the benefits as have been allowed to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment. At this stage, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the relief of pension has already been accorded to the petitioner. The pension has been sanctioned in his favour and Pension Payment Order (PPO) in this regard has been issued to the petitioner. Petitioner’s case for revised pension has also been sent to the office of Accountant General. Let learned Additional Advocate General to place on record these document on the next date. List on 20.11.2024. Subsequent thereto, learned Additional Advocate General placed on record instructions memo dated 18.11.2024 along with Pension Payment Order (PPO) sanctioned in petitioner’s favour as well as order dated 18.03.2024 refixing petitioner’s pay. In terms of the PPO, petitioner’s pension commenced w.e.f. 01.01.2018 reflecting petitioner’s date of retirement as 31.05.2018. 3. During hearing of the case on 20.11.2024, further grievance was raised for the petitioner that arrears of pension had not been released in his favour. 2 CWP No. 2414/2020 decided on 14.08.2023 3 When the matter was taken up on 08.01.2025, learned Deputy Advocate General informed the Court that the pension arrears amounting to Rs.6,21,029/- w.e.f. 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2022 have also been released in petitioner’s favour, whereafter following order was passed in the matter on the aforesaid date: - “Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 07.01.2025 from the Divisional Forest Officer, Kunihar, District Solan as also office instructions of even date from the Treasury Officer Solan, H.P. As per these instructions, pension arrears amounting to Rs.6,21,029/- w.e.f. 01.01.2018 to 31.01.2022 has been released in favour of the petitioner vide bill dated 07.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had retired on 30.05.2016, therefore, he is entitled to pension with effect from the date of his retirement, whereas the respondents have paid pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018. Let learned Deputy Advocate General to have instructions as to why petitioner has been paid pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018 instead of 01.06.2016. Instructions be obtained by the next date of hearing. List after four weeks.” On 20.05.2025, it was contended for the petitioner that though he was retired by the respondents on his attaining the age of 58 years on 31.05.2016, but pension had been sanctioned in his favour w.e.f. 01.06.2018, which has resulted in causing irreparable loss and injury to him as for a period of two years, the petitioner had been denied not only the salary, but also the pension. Upon hearing the parties, following order was passed: - 4 “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1992. He was conferred work charge status in the year 2002. His services were regularized in the year 2007. Petitioner retired on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.05.2016. The respondents have sanctioned pension to the petitioner, but w.e.f. 01.06.2018 instead of 01.06.2016, i.e. immediately on his attaining the age of 58 years. Respondents in their instructions dated 19.02.2025 have put forth the defense that the petitioner has to be considered as retired on 31.05.2018, i.e. on the last day of the month in which he attained the age of 60 years in light of the decision rendered in CWP No.2711 of 2017 (Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others), decided alongwith connected matter on 22.02.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the stand taken by the respondents. According to him, the aforesaid stand amounts to respondents’ putting premium on their own inaction, causing irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner for a period of two years, for which the petitioner has been denied not only the salary, but also the pension. Let the respondents file supplementary affidavit dealing with the aforesaid contention within two weeks. List thereafter.” 4. In compliance to above, the respondents have filed supplementary affidavit explaining therein that:- Petitioner was initially engaged as daily wager in Kunihar Forest Division on 01.01.1992; His services were regularized as Mali w.e.f. 30.03.2007; He retired on attaining the age of superannuation (58 years) on 31.05.2016; Pursuant to the judgment delivered in Baldev Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3, the case of the petitioner was processed 3 CWP No. 2711/2017 decided along with connected matter on 22.02.2022 5 for pension, as in terms of Baldev Singh,. petitioner’s date of retirement had to be construed as 30/31.05.2018 i.e. at the age of 60 years. The portion relevant to the context from Baldev Singh2, is extracted hereinafter: - “(iii) There cannot be any discrimination amongst similarly situated Class-IV employees belonging to one homogeneous class. Therefore, the retirement date, of such of those employees, who had been engaged on daily wage basis prior to 10.05.2001, but regularized after 10.05.2001 and have actually been retired prior to the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2018 at the age of 58 years, shall be deemed to be the date when they otherwise attained the age of 60 years. Since these employees have not actually worked beyond the age of 58 years, therefore, they will not be entitled to the actual monetary benefits of wages/salary etc. for the period of service from the date of their actual retirement till deemed dates of their retirement. However, they will be entitled to notional fixation of their pay for the period in question for working out their payable pension and payment of consequential arrears of pension accordingly.” The respondents in the supplementary affidavit have clarified that in lieu of Baldev Singh2, petitioner’s pay was notionally fixed till 30.05.2018 and revised gratuity was accordingly released to him on 01.01.2025. Petitioner’s revised pension case was also accordingly approved and it was in this manner that the petitioner is getting revised pension after giving him the benefit of notional fixation of pay w.e.f. 30.05.2016 to 30.05.2018 in light of Baldev Singh2. 6 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges the above facts and submits that dispute now does not survive and petitioner’s grievances raised in the instant petition stand redressed. In view of above, the writ petition to stand disposed of as the respondents have redressed petitioner’s grievances. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 01st September, 2025(rohit)