IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1465 of 2024 Date of Decision: 06.05.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chungal Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N. Singh and Dr. Nidhi Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 is on record, perusal whereof clearly reveals that reliefs No.1 & 2, as prayed for in the instant petition stand granted, as is evident from office order dated 02.12.2024 (Annexure R-1). As per aforesaid office order, petitioner has been deemed to have been retired after attaining the age of 60 years i.e. on 31.10.2015. As far as grant of relief No.3 i.e. retiral benefits, pension, gratuity and leave encashment etc. is concerned, petitioner herein has been requested to submit his option for taking 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the benefit under Old Pension Scheme. It would be apt to take note of following Para of the reply, which reads as under: “2. That the petitioner in the present writ petition has mainly sought precise relief that he may be retired at the age of 60 years instead of 58 years alongwith pensionary benefits. With regard to the claim of petitioner it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner was engaged in the respondent department w.e.f. year, 1995 as daily wage Beldar (Class- IV). The petitioner w.e.f. year, 1996 has worked continuously with 240 days in each calendar year. The petitioner having date of birth 24.10.1955, as such he stood retired from service on 31.10.2013 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. It is further submitted that after decision of Baldev Singh's case and thereupon the decision conveyed by the Government vide letter dated 28.4.2023, the petitioner has also been considered to be deemed retired at the age of 60 - years i.e. on 31.10.2015. The pay of petitioner has also been re-fixed vide order dated 02.12.2023 on 'Notional Basis'. The copy of order dated 02.12.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1. So far as the claim of petitioner that he may be granted pension benefit is concerned, it is worth to submit here that after restoration of Old Pension Scheme in State of Himachal Pradesh, all the workmen/Government servant either retired or in service have been requested to submit their option for taking the benefit of Old Pension Scheme. The petitioner was also requested to submit his option for taking the benefit of Old Pension Scheme supported with the affidavit as per Government instructions. But the petitioner has not submitted his option with the respondent department till date. Until the petitioner submit the option for taking pension benefit under Old Pension Scheme as per instructions of Government & deposit the amount of contribution of NPS received by him, his pension case cannot be submitted to the O/o Accountant General, HP. The petitioner till date has not submitted the option for the benefit of old pension scheme and has not deposited the amount 3 received under NPS. Therefore, the petitioner himself appears to be not interested for taking the benefit of pension and he has filed the present petition without fulfilling the requisite conditions. The claim of the petitioner can be considered only on satisfying the conditions required for availing the benefit of pension. In view of this, the present petition is not maintainable and the deserves to be dismissed in the interest of justice.” 2. After having perused reply, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while fairly acknowledging factum with regard to grant of reliefs No.1 & 2, states that present petition can be disposed of, with the direction to respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension, after receipt of option, expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of, with the direction to respondents to give him option within a period of four weeks and thereafter necessary steps shall be taken by the respondents to ensure release of pension as well as other retiral benefits within a period of three weeks. Needless to say, after receipt of pension case of the petitioner, respondent No.5 shall ensure issuance of PPO in favour of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 06, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)