Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9330 (HP)

State of H P through Secretary Rural to the Govt of H P Shimla v. Rita Rani

RP/11/2025 · 2025-06-26

Bipin Chander Negi, Tarlok Singh Chauhan

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 ( 2025:HHC:20183 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Review Petition No.11 of 2025 Decided on: 26.06.2025. State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...…..Petitioners Versus Rita Rani …..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioners: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral ) Caveat Petition No. 40/2025 Since caveator/respondent/writ petitioner has put in appearance, therefore, Caveat is discharged. Review Petition No.11/2025 Learned Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 24.06.2025 and states that appointment in terms of directions passed by this Court on 10.12.2024 is being given to the writ petitioner i.e. the respondent herein, during the course of the day. His statement is taken on record. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No 2 ( 2025:HHC:20183 ) 3. By medium of this Review Petition, the respondents-State have actually sought clarification of para-13 of the order dated 10.12.2024, whereby this Court has held the writ petitioner to be entitled to benefit of continuity of service and seniority alone for the purpose of promotion and pension. 4. It is urged that the establishment where the writ petitioner is working is not a pensionable establishment, therefore, she is not entitled to pension. 5. We need to clarify that we have not observed or held the writ petitioner to be entitled to pension. Therefore, if pension is not admissible in the establishment, where the writ petitioner is working, obviously, then the pension cannot be granted to her. The order is clarified and modified accordingly. 6. In view of above, the instant Review Petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 26thJune, 2025. (mamta/yogesh)