Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33535 (HP)

KULDEEP CHAND SOOD AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF HP AND ANOTHER

EX.PT/119/2023 · 2025-10-07

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Ex. Petition No.119 of 2023 Decided on 07th October, 2025 Shri Kuldeep Chand Sood and another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) When this case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only surviving grievance of the petitioners is that the service rendered by the petitioners in the College where they were initially engaged i.e., National College, Amb have not been taken into consideration for the purpose of commuting the pension of the petitioners. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Advocate General and having perused the order passed by the Court in favour of the petitioners 2 dated 02.12.2011, this Court is of the considered view that the pension, to which, the petitioners are entitled to obviously has to be calculated as from the date when their services were taken over by the Government. There is no mandamus issued by the Court in the judgment that the services rendered by the petitioners in the institute which was subsequently taken over were to be counted for pension. Otherwise also, the relief granted by the Court to the petitioners was very specific wherein respondents were directed to fix the pay of the petitioners at the time of the taking over of the College in which pay scale they were drawing salary at the time of taking over of the College and their service. This explicitly means that the taking over of the service of the petitioners was prospective and the only protection that was given was of securing of the pay scale. 3. Accordingly, as the judgment now stands complied with in letter and spirit, the execution petition is disposed of, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 07, 2025 (Vinod)