1 2025:HHC:38782 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 1520 of 2025 & LPA No. 791 of 2025 Date of decision: 13.11.2025. ________________________________________________________ State of H.P. & others …..Appellants Versus Phoolmati & another ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 1520 of 2025 The present appeal is barred by 87 days. Keeping in view the averments made in the application which is duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 LPA No. No. 791 of 2025 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 7097 of 2024, Phoolmati Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, dated 31.12.2024, whereby a direction had been issued to the respondents to treat the option submitted by the petitioner on 04.11.2023, as a valid option and the case of the petitioner for grant of pension was directed to be processed. 3. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the writ petitioner was a Class-IV employee, therefore, the rigors of Memorandum dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) qua the period mentioned therein for the exercise of option, could not be construed in a harsh manner as she would not be having knowledge of any Memorandum having been issued by the Government and that an act had to be performed by her within the stipulated period. The learned Single Judge held that the employer should have informed such like employees of the Memorandum and seek their option, 3 within some reasonable time. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that as per the Memorandum dated 04.05.2023, option should have been exercised within 60 days from the date of the issuance of the above Memorandum and therefore, the said exercise was required to be completed by 03.07.2024, but the petitioner had exercised her option only on 04.11.2023, after an additional period of four months. 5. We have gone through the paper book, from the perusal of which, it transpires that the employee stood retired on 31.08.2020 (Annexure R-III) and she was given the benefit of regularization after her superannuation on 04.12.2021 (Annexure P-1) w.e.f. 01.01.2007. Thus, the right as such for pension would arise only after when she was regularized in the year 2021. 6. It is not disputed that even as per the terms of the Notification dated 04.05.2023 (Annexure P-2), 4 whereby the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, were amended by the State w.e.f. 01.04.2023, certain benefits were given to Government servants, who had already retired or died in harness during the period w.e.f. 15.05.2003 to 31.03.2023, if such retired Government servants or eligible family members exercise their option to get the pensionary benefits under the Rules from prospective date i.e. w.e.f. 01.04.2023, subject to deposit of Government contribution and dividend return earned thereon under the National Pension System to the State Government. Thus, apparently, it was a beneficial amendment as such which was also applicable to the persons who had retired at the prior point of time for over a period of 20 years. 7. In such circumstances, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that a Class-IV employee, who had already retired as such at the time of issuance of the Memorandum dated 04.05.2023, who could not give an option within the 5 prescribed period of 60 days, as she was not aware of the strict provisions as such of the cut-off date, not being in touch with her employer. 8 In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and are not inclined to interfere in the same. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed alongwith pending application(s), if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. November 13, 2025 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.