JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, L.R. Kaundal and 50 others having retired from service of Himachal Pradesh State  Handicraft  and  Handloom  Corporation,  filed an Original Application No. 5325 of 2016 before State  Administrative  Tribunal  and  upon  abolition of Tribunal, the matter came to be transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.332 of 2020, seeking the following reliefs:- “(i). That  the  impugned  communications dated 19.1.2016 and 17.2.2016 between the Respondents No. 1 and 2 wherein respondent No1 has restricted its liability to  the  extent  of  statutory  pension  only by releasing part of grant in aid to the extent  of  Rs. 40  lakhs  instead  of Rs. 87,61,695/- and further directing the respondent Corporation No.3 to consider the case for release of enhanced dearness relief from time to time to its retiree being illegal, violative to Pension Scheme (Annexure  A-1)  and  CCS  Pension  Rules be  declared  void  abinitio,  and  hence set aside. Further respondent No.1 i.e. department   of   finance,   Government   of H.P. be directed to release entire grant in aid so that the arrears of dearness allowance  for  the  period  with  effect from July, 2015 to March, 2016 be disbursed to the applicants by respondent Corporation alongwith interest from the date of entitlement till its realization. (b) That  the  case  of  the  applicants  is squarely  covered  by  the  judgment  passed by  the  Hon'ble  High  Court  in  CWP(T) No. 6604 of 2008 and OA No. 1395 of 2016 and hence in accordance with the directions passed in these cases the applicants be made entitled for full pension and respondent No.1 be directed to  make  necessary  provisions  for  grant in aid so that arrears of dearness allowance   for   the   period   with   effect from July, 2015 to March, 2016 be released in their favour. (c) Further, the respondent No. 1 i.e., Department of Finance be issued with necessary  directions  for  releasing  of Grant in aid in favour of respondent Corporation No. 3 so that necessary arrangements  be  made  for  the  issuance of  full  pension  in  favour  of  applicants i.e., Statutory Pension and Dearness relief from April, 2016 till date.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case set up by Learned Counsel for petitioners  is  that  on  29.10.1999  [Annexure  A-1], the State of Himachal Pradesh notified a Scheme The Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension,  Family Pension, Computation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme 1999 and the Scheme was made applicable from 01.04.1999. Case set up by Learned Counsel for petitioners  is  that  on  29.10.1999  [Annexure  A-1], the State of Himachal Pradesh notified a Scheme The Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension,  Family Pension, Computation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme 1999 and the Scheme was made applicable from 01.04.1999. This Scheme remained in force till its repeal on 02.12.2014 [Annexure  A-2]. In  the  backdrop  of  said  scheme, the case of the petitioners is that they are the retirees of the Respondent No 3-Himachal Pradesh State  Handicrafts  and  Handloom  Corporation, who retired from service during the operation and continuance  of  said  scheme  w.e.f.  01.04.1999  till 02.12.2004. It  is  averred  that  the  petitioners had  opted  for  pensionary  benefits  in  terms  of the scheme. Based on the Scheme, the Respondent No.  3-Corporation released  the  pensionary benefits to petitioners from the date of their respective retirements  and  family  pension  in  cases  of  death of an employee from time to time. It is averred that the pensionary benefits included release of dearness  relief  on  pension  and  the  same  was duly released to the petitioners inaccordance with CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and the mandate and intent of 1999 Scheme. It is averred that Principal Secretary [Industries] issued a communication on 19.01.2016 [Annexure A-3], directing Respondent No.3-Corporation  that,  in  case,  the  Corporation does not have a corpus to make the recurring payments  of  dearness  relief  on  pension  in  view of the non-availability of funds, therefore, the Respondent-Corporation  was  directed  to  examine the matter at its own level. It is averred that the communication dated 17.02.2016 [Annexure A-4] indicates  that  58  employees  have  retired  from service of Respondent-Corporation between the period from 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004 and these employees were given basic pension and dearness relief  but  in  view  of  adverse  financial  condition/non-availability of funds, Respondent-Corporation was  unable  to  release  dearness  relief  on  pension to its pensioners. In view of the weak financial condition,  Managing  Director  of  Respondent  No 3-Corporation requested the State Authorities to allocate additional funds of Rs 47,61,000/-[Rupees Forty  Seven  Thousand  Sixty  One  Thousand  Only] so that the dearness relief on pension could be released  to  retirees  in  order  to  avoid  litigation in  the  matter. Since  nothing  was  done  therefore, the Respondent-Corporation abruptly stopped the dearness  relief  on  pension  of  petitioners-retirees for  period  from  January-February  2016  onwards. Since  nothing  was  done  therefore, the Respondent-Corporation abruptly stopped the dearness  relief  on  pension  of  petitioners-retirees for  period  from  January-February  2016  onwards. The petitioners submitted a representation on 30.04.2016  [Annexure  A-5],  which  was  responded by  Managing  Director  of  Respondent-Corporation on 12.05.2016 [Annexure A-6], stating that dearness relief  on  pension  cannot  be  granted  unless  the funds are released by the State Government. 2(ii). Petitioners relied upon a judgment passed by  Co-ordinate  Bench  of  this  Court  in  the  case of B. S. Himalvi versus HPTDC [CWP(T) No 6604 of  2008  decided  on  16.11.2010,  Annexure  A-7], to assert that similarly placed retirees of Himachal Pradesh  Tourism  Development  Corporation  were held  entitled  for  all  pensionary  benefits,  like pension and dearness relief on pension as revised from  time  to  time  in  terms  of  1999  Scheme and  once  pensionary  benefits  and  dearness  relief on pension was given to retirees of other Corporations, who were governed by the Corporate Pension Scheme, therefore, the petitioners herein, were entitled  for  similar treatment. 2(iii). Though petitioners have filed the instant petition,  claiming  restoration,  revival  and  release of dearness relief on pension, which was abruptly stopped  by  Respondents  from  January-February 2016  but  Learned  Counsel  for  the  petitioners states  at  the  bar  that dearness  relief on pension has  been  released  to  the  petitioners  from  the date  of  respective  retirement  or  date  of  death or the date of discharge during the period from 01.04.1999 till 02.12.2004 as revised from time before  January  2016  and  even  beyond  July  2022 till day. In this backdrop, the surviving grievance is  against  the  non-release  of  dearness  relief on pension from January-February 2016 till July 2022. STAND OF RESPONDENT No3-CORPORATION IN REPLY-AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 20.10.2016, Respondent No 3-Corporation has filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 18.04.2017, of Managing Director, Handcrafts and Handloom Corporation Limited. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that the instant petition  is  not  maintainable  for  the  reason  that the  issue  regarding  admissibility  or  inadmissibility of  dearness  relief  relates  to  a  policy  decision to be taken by State Government. Reply-Affidavit indicates that Respondent-Corporation was passing through  an  adverse  financial  condition  and  has accumulated  losses  to  the  tune  of  Rs.1504  lakh as on 31.03.2016 and due to adverse financial conditions, even retired employees are not being given their retiral benefits in time. Reply-Affidavit indicates that Respondent-Corporation was passing through  an  adverse  financial  condition  and  has accumulated  losses  to  the  tune  of  Rs.1504  lakh as on 31.03.2016 and due to adverse financial conditions, even retired employees are not being given their retiral benefits in time. Reply-Affidavit indicates that in the year 2005, the Respondent Corporation had requested to dis-associate them from  the  purview  of  the  Scheme  in  view  of adverse  financial  position. Para  2  of  the  Reply -Affidavit  on  merits  states  that  in  accordance with the scheme notified by the Government, the respondents have been releasing the basic pension along with dearness relief on pension to the petitioners therefore, Principal Secretary [Industries] sent  a  communication  to  Respondent-Corporation on 19.01.2016 [Annexure P-3] that in view of adverse  financial  condition,  the  Corporation  may take necessary action and in response to this, Managing  Director  requested  the  State  Authorities on 17.02.2016 [Annexure P-4/R-1], for releasing additional  funds  so  as  to  meet  out  the  liability of pensionary benefits [basic pension and dearness relief  on  pension  to  retired  employees]  but  since no funds were allocated therefore, the dearness relief on pension, of the petitioners-retirees-family pensioners was stopped/discontinued by Respondent Corporation. In above backdrop, the Corporation has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 4. Pursuant  to  the  issuance  of  notice, the State Authorities filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 12.04.2017,  of  Special  Secretary  [Industries],  to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. 4(i). The sum and substance of the Reply- Affidavit  is  that  on  29.10.1999  [Annexure  P-1], State Government notified the Himachal Pradesh State Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Computation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme, 1999. This Scheme was made applicable from  01.04.1999  and  it  remained  in  force  till its repeal on 02.12.2024 [Annexure A-2] and the claim  for  dearness  relief  on  pension  from  2016 was  not  tenable,  as  dearness  relief  on  pension was  not  a  part  of  Corporate  Pension  Scheme, 1999 as notified by the State Government. 4(ii). Reply-Affidavit refers to the judgment passed  by  the  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  in  the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others versus Rajesh Chander Sood [Civil Appeal No. 9750-9819  of  2016,  decided  on  28.09.2016],  to assert the State-Government cannot be burdened with pensionary liability of the Corporate Sector Employees. In this backdrop, that a prayer was made  for  dismissing  the  writ  petition. 5. Heard Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. In this backdrop, that a prayer was made  for  dismissing  the  writ  petition. 5. Heard Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Amit K. Chaudhary, Learned State Counsel for respondents 1 & 2; and Mr. Chander  Shekhar  Thakur,  Learned  Counsel for  the  Respondent  No.3-Corporation  and  have gone through the material on record. ANALYSIS: 6. Taking into account the entirety of facts and  circumstances  and  the  material  on  record, this Court is of the considered view, that abrupt stoppage  or  discontinuance  of  Dearness  Relief on  Pension  in  case  of  the  petitioners-retires  and family pensioners from the month of January- February 2016 onwards cannot pass the test of judicial  scrutiny  and  the  claim  of  the  petitioners for  restoration,  revival  and  release  of  dearness relief  on  pension  from  January-February  2016 till  July-August  2022  carries  weight  and  the claim is  accepted,  for  the  following  reasons:- STOPPAGE-DISCONTINUATION OF DEARNESS RELIEF ON PENSION DEHORS THE SCHEME UNTENABLE: 6(i). On 29.10.1999, Annexure A-1, the State Government notified the HP Corporate Sector Employees  (Pension,  Family  Pension,  Computation of Pension and Gratuity) Scheme [referred to as Corporate Sector Pension Scheme or 1999 Scheme, herein],  deciding  that  as  per  Clause  1(2)  of Scheme participating Corporate Sector Employees shall  be  given  “all  pensionary  benefits”,  which shall  be  determined  in  accordance  with  the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Perusal of Annexure-I attached to the Scheme names the beneficiary Boards, Corporations and PSU’s, which includes Respondent  No3-Himachal  Pradesh  State  Handcrafts and  Handloom  Corporation  to  be  a  part  of  the said Scheme. Clause 3(g) mandates that Finance Department of State Government shall be the “Pension Sanctioning Authority” in case of the employees who were covered under the said Scheme. Clause 3(h) goes on to show that the Department of Finance or its authorized officers shall  be  the  “Pension  Disbursing  Authority”  of the employees who were governed by the Scheme. Sub-Clause  2  of  Clause  3  indicates  that  the words and expressions which were not defined in this  Scheme  were  to  be  assigned  the  same meaning as in Rule 3 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and Rule 3 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981. Sub-Clause  2  of  Clause  3  indicates  that  the words and expressions which were not defined in this  Scheme  were  to  be  assigned  the  same meaning as in Rule 3 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and Rule 3 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules 1981. Clause 4 expressly provides that  the  claim  of  the  employees  who  retire  or die or were discharged will be governed by this Scheme  and  for  deriving  benefits  under  this Scheme,  existing  employees  shall  have  to  opt for benefits under the said Scheme and upon submission of option, employee of the Corporation who  were  governed  by  CPF  were  automatically to  come  over-switch  over  to  new  scheme,  subject to  the  condition,  that  such  employees  deposit CPF  amount  with  the  Finance  Department. It  is only after compliance of these requirements that pensionary benefits, which includes pension and dearness  relief  on  pension  was  to  accrue  to the retirees and family pensioners or employees who  were  discharged  from  service  during  the period  from  01.04.1999  i.e.  date  of  applicability till 02.12.2004 i.e. date of repeal of the said Scheme,  respectively. In  order  to  give  effect  to the  rights  and  legal  entitlements  under  this Scheme, the Respondents have in one voice and with one action, sanctioned the pension and also released dearness relief on pension to petitioners herein, inaccordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and the Scheme. However, the action of Respondents  in  abruptly  “stopping-discontinuing the rights, benefits and legal entitlements i.e. “Dearness  Relief  on  Pension”  which  was  payable to  the  petitioners  from  January-February  2016 under  the  Scheme  of  1999  and  the  CCS  (Pension) Rules  1972  amounts  to  defeating  the  intent and object of 1999 Scheme. The impugned action being dehors the Scheme and the CCS (Pension) Rules  1972  cannot  form  the  basis  for  negating the rights, benefits and the legal entitlements of “Dearness  Relief  on  Pension”  which  accrue  to the  petitioners  under  the  Scheme  and  Rules by acting in an unfair, unreasonable, whimsical and arbitrary manner and therefore, the impugned action  is  interdicted  by  this  Court. STOPPAGE-DISCONTINUATION OF DEARNESS RELIEF  ON  PENSION  IGNORING  PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNTENABLE: 6(ii). STOPPAGE-DISCONTINUATION OF DEARNESS RELIEF  ON  PENSION  IGNORING  PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE UNTENABLE: 6(ii). Action of the Respondents 1 to 3 inter-se in  stopping  or  dis-continuing  the  “Dearness  Relief on Pension” abruptly in case of the petitioners- retirees  from  January-February  2016  by  giving a complete go bye to the principles of natural justice, without giving a prior notice and without affording a personal hearing to the petitioners- retirees and by acting in a capricious manner unknown in law, cannot sustain. Stoppage of dearness  relief  on  pension  from  January-February 2016 till July 2022 has visited the petitioners- retirees herein with civil consequences. The abrupt stoppage or discontinuance of Relief in Pension cannot  be  permitted  to  sustain,  unless  and  until, a prior notice and opportunity of hearing was afforded  to  petitioners. Nothing  has  been  placed on record by the Respondents to establish that before  discontinuing  or  stopping  the  dearness relief on pension from January-February, 2016 onwards prior notice and personal hearing was given  to  the  petitioners. In  these  circumstances, this  Court  has  no  hesitation  to  hold,  that  the abrupt  stoppage  or  discontinuance  of  dearness relief on pension of the petitioners-retirees from January-February  2016  till  July  2022  cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, impugned discontinuance or stoppage of dearness relief  on  pension  is  uncalled  for  and  is  quashed and set aside. ABRUPT DISCONTINUATION OF DEARNESS RELIEF ON PENSION RENDERS THE SCHEME NUGATORY AND OTIOSE: 6(iii). In terms of the 1999 Scheme, the petitioners being eligible and covered under the Scheme were given “all the pensionary benefits” includes pension and dearness relief on pension from respective date of retirement or death or discharge  from  service  between  01.04.1999  i.e. date of applicability till 02.12.2004 i.e. date of repeal  of  the  said  Scheme,  inaccordance  with the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and the Scheme. Abrupt “stoppage or discontinuance of “Dearness Relief on Pension” from January-February 2016 amounts  to  obliterating  the  rights,  benefits  and legal entitlement of “Dearness Relief on Pension” and  the  Impugned  action  amounts  to  rendering the Scheme as ineffective, nugatory and otiose. Abrupt stoppage of dearness relief on pension amounts  to  “defeating  the  protection  and  the rights, benefits and the legal entitlements which “were  saved”  “and  “were  to  be  continued”  by the State Government in case of the petitioners while  repealing  the  1999  Scheme  on  02.12.2004 {Annexure   P-2}. Abrupt stoppage of dearness relief on pension amounts  to  “defeating  the  protection  and  the rights, benefits and the legal entitlements which “were  saved”  “and  “were  to  be  continued”  by the State Government in case of the petitioners while  repealing  the  1999  Scheme  on  02.12.2004 {Annexure   P-2}. Once   the   Scheme   remains   in vogue   qua   the   petitioners   herein,   despite   its repeal therefore, the rights, benefits and legal entitlements  which  had  accrued  and  vested under 1999 Scheme and CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 cannot  be  permitted  to  be  rendered  inoperative or  nugatory  and  otiose,  as  has  been  done  in instant  case. Till  the  time  the  Scheme  exists, “all  pensionary  benefits”  i.e.  pension,  dearness relief on pension and other benefits admissible under  the  Scheme  cannot  be  restricted  at  the whims and mercy of the Respondents and the impugned action  cannot sustain. CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS COUNSEL UNTENABLE: 6(iv). Plea  of  the  Respondent  No.3-Corporation in Reply-Affidavit is that the issue as to whether the  Dearness  Relief  on  Pension  is  to  be  given or not lies within the domain of the State Authorities,  which  is  to  be  taken  by  way  of a policy decision and therefore, the discontinuance or  stoppage  of  dearness  relief  on  pension  was in accordance with law. Plea  of  the  Respondent  No.3-Corporation in Reply-Affidavit is that the issue as to whether the  Dearness  Relief  on  Pension  is  to  be  given or not lies within the domain of the State Authorities,  which  is  to  be  taken  by  way  of a policy decision and therefore, the discontinuance or  stoppage  of  dearness  relief  on  pension  was in accordance with law. The above contention of the Respondent-Corporation cannot sustain, for the reasons; firstly, once the State Government had notified Corporate Sector Pension Scheme on 29.10.1999 [Annexure A-1] by making it applicable w.e.f. 01.04.1999 and the said scheme remained in force till its repeal on 02.12.2004 and the Scheme mandated to grant “all pensionary benefits to employees” therefore, in such a scenario the stand of the Corporation that the release of dearness relief on pension, was dependant on the policy decision to be taken by the State is not sustainable; and secondly, the plea that release of dearness relief on pension is subject to policy decision of the State could sustain only in case of those employees who were not covered under the 1999 Scheme; and thirdly, as per 1999 Scheme, once the Corporate Sector Employees are entitled for all pensionary benefits in accordance with the CCS (Pension) Rules and Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 which mandates the State Government to grant dearness relief on pension, then, the plea of the Corporation that dearness relief on pension is dependent upon the policy decision to be taken by State is not tenable; fourthly, the right of a pensioner for dearness relief on pension accrues-flowing from Rule 55-A of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 therefore, such a legal entitlement flowing from Statutory Rules cannot be restricted, curtailed, negated, delayed or withheld by the State Authorities at its whims and fancies; and fifthly, once the State Authorities on issuing 1999 Scheme had treated the Corporate Sector Employees who retired or died or were discharged from service between 01.04.1999 till repeal of the Scheme on 02.12.2004 at par with State Government Employees for the admissibility of Pension and also for release of Dearness Relief on Pension, under the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and based on this, once dearness relief on pension prescribed under Rule 55-A to the State Government Employees who retired or had died during the same period {01.04.1999 till 02.12.2004} throughout the State in all Government Departments and even to employees of 19 other Autonomous Bodies, Boards and Corporations/PSUs which find place in Annexure-I to 1999 Scheme then, the abrupt stoppage- discontinuance of dearness relief on pension from January-February 2016 is ex-facie discriminatory, arbitrary, based on no valid reason ; and sixthly, the impugned stoppage of dearness relief on pension for the period from January 2016 till July 2022 being dehors the 19 other Autonomous Bodies, Boards and Corporations/PSUs which find place in Annexure-I to 1999 Scheme then, the abrupt stoppage- discontinuance of dearness relief on pension from January-February 2016 is ex-facie discriminatory, arbitrary, based on no valid reason ; and sixthly, the impugned stoppage of dearness relief on pension for the period from January 2016 till July 2022 being dehors the Scheme results in hostile discrimination of petitioners by violating the established parity admissible/extended to the petitioners, who were eligible, covered, governed and were also extended ‘all pensionary benefits” including pension and relief on pension from time to time, in the past at par with the Employees of the State Government and the Employees of 19 other Boards/Corporations amounts to giving rise to superfluous and an artificial distinction is punitive; and lastly the abrupt stoppage of relief on pension admissible under Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and 1999 Scheme, amounts to obliterating the rights, benefits and legal entitlements which had accrued to the petitioners by virtue of being a member of the Scheme w.e.f. 01.04.1999 which were protected and saved even after the repeal of Scheme on 02.12.2004 [Annexure P-2]., Thus, the rights, benefits and legal entitlements accruing under the Scheme could not be negated in case of the petitioners, illegally. MANDATE OF LAW IN B S HIMALVI: 7. While dealing with a similar eventuality the action of the Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation in stopping-denying the dearness  relief  on  pension  was  adjudicated  by this Court, in the case of Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd versus B.S. Himalvi and another along with connected matters [CWP No.910 of 2018 decided on 03.01.2019], wherein, the Division Bench of this Court, after discussing the intent and object of the Corporate Sector  Employees  Pension  Scheme  and  after taking  into  account  the  provisions  of  Rule  3  [o] of   the   CCS   (Pension)   Rules   1972   read   with Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 has mandated that the right to dearness relief on pension, which flows from the Statutory Rules cannot  be  negated  by  the  State  Authorities  in any manner,  in the following terms:- “6. In our considered view, there is inherent contradiction in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. In our considered view, there is inherent contradiction in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. It is not in dispute that the right to receive pension of  the  respondents  is  governed  by the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Corporate Sector Employees (Pension, Family Pension, Commutation of Pension and  Gratuity)  Scheme,  1999  (Annexure P-1) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1999 Pension  Scheme’). Sub-clause  (2)  of Clause 1 of this Scheme provides as under:- “...(2) All pensionary benefits of the employees  of  the  participating H.P. Corporate Sector shall be determined in accordance with the provisions laid down in Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981, as amended and adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Government for the State Government employees save as otherwise provided in this Scheme.” 7. ‘Pension’ is defined under Clause (o) of Rule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 as:- “(o) Pension’ includes gratuity except when  the  term  pension  is  used in  contradistinction  to  gratuity, but does not include dearness relief” 8. Similarly,  ‘Dearness  Relief’  is  defined in Rule 55-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension)  Rules,  1972  and  the  same reads as under:- “55-A. Dearness Relief on Pension/Family Pension. (i) Relief against price rise may be granted to the pensioners and family pensioners in the form of  dearness  relief  at  such rates and subject to such conditions as the Central Government may specify from time to time.” 9. The abovementioned Rule position itself explicitly demonstrates that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners  that  Dearness  Relief  is not payable to a person, who is otherwise entitled for the grant of pension, is incorrect. 10. In our considered view, a harmonious reading of the definitions of ‘Pension’ as also ‘Dearness Relief’ clearly and categorically leads to one and only one conclusion  that  though  pension  does not include Dearness Relief, yet Dearness Relief is an integral part of the pensionary benefits, more so, in the present  case,  in  view  of  Sub-clause  (2) of Clause 1 of the 1999 Scheme already quoted above. 11. 11. The 1999 Pension Scheme itself envisages that all pensionary benefits of the employees of the participating H.P. Corporate  Sector  shall  be  determined as  per  the  provisions  laid  down  in Central  Civil  Services  (Pension) Rules,  1972,  as  amended  and  adopted by  the  Himachal  Pradesh  Government for  the  State  Government  employees, save as otherwise provided in the Scheme. 12. It is not the case of the petitioners that the benefit of Dearness Relief upon pension has not been adopted by the Himachal Pradesh Government for the State  Government  employees  or  that the same stands excluded under the provisions of the 1999 Pension Scheme. Once  the  respondents  have  been found entitled for the grant of pension under the 1999 Pension Scheme, Dearness Relief, by no stretch of imagination, can be denied to them either on the pretext that the Dearness Relief  is  not  payable  upon  pension or  on  the  ground  that  whether  or not  Dearness  Relief  is  to  be  granted, is the discretion of the employer. 13. It is settled law that the pension payable to  an  employee  is  determined  as  per the  Pension  Rules  which  govern  the field as on the date when the concerned employee  superannuates. In  the present case, as on the date when the respondents superannuated between 01.04.1999   to   02.12.2004,   the   1999 Pension Scheme was in force. This Scheme envisaged grant of pensionary benefits to the respondents in accordance with  the  provisions  of  the  Central Civil  Services  (Pension)  Rules,  1972. That   being   the   case,   as   grant of  Dearness  Relief  is  provided  for upon pension by the 1972 Rules, denial of the same by the petitioners to the respondents was clearly an arbitrary  act  and  the  same  has been  rightly  set  aside  by  the  learned Tribunal by holding that the respondents are entitled for the grant of Dearness Relief upon pension. 14. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  that  pension is a right and its payment does not depend upon the discretion of the employer,  but  is  governed  by  the Rules and an employee coming within those   Rules   is   entitled   to   pension {See  State  of  Rajasthan  and  others Vs. Mahendra Nath Sharma, (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 540}. 15. Accordingly,  as  this  Court  does  not find  any  merit  in  these  writ  petitions, the same are dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 8. Mahendra Nath Sharma, (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 540}. 15. Accordingly,  as  this  Court  does  not find  any  merit  in  these  writ  petitions, the same are dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 8. Learned  State  Counsel  while  referring to  Reply-Affidavit  makes  an  attempt  to  dislodge the petitioners, on the ground, that dearness relief on pension cannot be claimed as of right by petitioners  in  view  of  the  judgment  in  the  case of Rajesh Chander Sood (supra). The above contention of Learned State Counsel  has  been  raised  just  to  be  negativated by  this  Court,  for  the  reason,  that  as  per the judgment in the case of B.S. Himalvi, Annexure A-7 (supra) once the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the right and entitlement of the pensioners/family   pensioners   for   dearness   relief on  pension  as  revised  from  time  to  time  then, the plea of the State Counsel that the dearness relief cannot be a  part  of pension  does  not stand to rational and logic. Once the Division Bench of this Court has upheld the admissibility of the dearness  relief  on  pension  then,  the  plea  of Learned  State  Counsel  does  not  hold  ground, in view of admissibility of relief on pension, by virtue of Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, on facts as well as in law. 8(i). So  far  as  the  submission  based  on the  judgment  in  the  case  of  Rajesh  Chander Sood  (supra)  this  Court  is  of  the  considered view,  that  aforesaid  judgment  is  distinguishable, for  the  reason,  that  the  petitioners  in  the  case of Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) were retirees/ family pensioners who were not governed by Corporate Employees Pension Scheme of 1999 [Annexure P-1]  and  those  incumbents,  who  retired or died or were discharged from service of the Boards/Corporations  after  repeal  of  1999  Scheme on  02.12.2024. Those  employees  who  retired  after repeal  of  1999  Scheme  on  02.12.2004  [Annexure P-2],  do  not  have  any  vested  right  for  pension and  State  Government  was  within  its  authority to  fix  a  cut-off  date  i.e.  02.12.2004  to  repeal/discontinue  or  to  oust  such  employees  from the purview of the Scheme. Even the employees who  retired  from  service  after  the  repeal  of 1999 Scheme on 02.12.2004 constituted a different class and such retirees cannot claim parity with those employees who retired before repeal of Scheme  on  02.12.2004  and  were  covered  under the Scheme. Even the employees who  retired  from  service  after  the  repeal  of 1999 Scheme on 02.12.2004 constituted a different class and such retirees cannot claim parity with those employees who retired before repeal of Scheme  on  02.12.2004  and  were  covered  under the Scheme. In this backdrop, even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has mandated in case of Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) that the employees who retired from service after repeal of Scheme on 02.12.2004 were disentitled for pensionary benefits and even the claim for parity by such employees was negated, which shall burden the State Exchequer, despite the fact that such employees (retiring  after  repeal  of  Scheme  on  2.12.2004) have no vested right for pensionary benefits after repeal  of  the  Scheme. Thought  he  claim  of  the persons  who  retired  from  service  after  repeal of  the  Scheme  on  02.12.2004  was  outlined  in the  case  of  Rajesh  Chander  Sood  (supra),  but the  said  judgement  stands  reaffirmed  by  Three Judge  Bench  of  the  Honble  Supreme  Court  in Satish Chander Sharma and Ors vs State of Himachal  Pradesh,  2025  SCC  Online  SC  792, by  negating  the  claim  for  any  pensionary  benefits of employees who retired from service after repeal of Scheme on 2.12.2004. In  the  instant  case,  the  petitioners are retirees/family pensioners of the Respondent Corporation, between the period 01.04.1999 till repeal  of  Scheme  on  02.12.2004  and  based  on this,  State  Authorities  sanctioned  and  released all pensionary benefits i.e. the pension including dearness relief on pension. Based on the Scheme once the Pension and Dearness Relief in Pension was granted/released to employees of 19 other Boards-Corporations which find mention in the Schedule/Annexure-I  to  the  Scheme  and  also  to the  Employees  of  State  Government  {who  retired between  01.04.1999  till  02.12.2004  i.e.  period when the Scheme remained operative} therefore, action  of  the  Respondents  in  abruptly  stopping and  discontinuing  the  Dearness  Relief  on  Pension in  case  of  the  petitioners  from  January-Feb  2016 to July 2022 or like period, cannot sustain and same  is  quashed  and  set-aside,  in  fact  situation of instant case. ABRUPT STOPPAGE OF LEGAL ENTITLEMENT OF DEARNESS RELIEF ON PENSION BY NEGATING STATURORY RULE AND SCHEME - IMPERMISSIBLE: 8(ii). Dearness Relief on Pension is  not a bounty  but  is  a  legal  entitlement  flowing  from Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Dearness Relief  is  a  relief  granted  to  the  pensioners and  family  pensioners  against  price  rise. ABRUPT STOPPAGE OF LEGAL ENTITLEMENT OF DEARNESS RELIEF ON PENSION BY NEGATING STATURORY RULE AND SCHEME - IMPERMISSIBLE: 8(ii). Dearness Relief on Pension is  not a bounty  but  is  a  legal  entitlement  flowing  from Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Dearness Relief  is  a  relief  granted  to  the  pensioners and  family  pensioners  against  price  rise. The price  rise  is  common  and  uniform,  in  case  of all the employees-retirees of 19 others Boards, Corporations of PSU’s, which find place-mention along with the Respondent No.3-Himachal Pradesh State Handicraft and Handloom Corporation in Annexure-Schedule-I  of  1999  Scheme. Moreover, the  price  rise  affects  employees  of  the  State Government  with  equal  force,  who  had  retired or  died  during  01.04.1999  to  02.12.2004  and who are covered and were governed under the under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 for giving pension, including relief in pension. Based on this, the petitioners were also validly extended and released Pension  and  Dearness  Relief  on  Pension  from time  to  time. Pertinently,  even  while  issuing the  orders  granting  dearness  relief  on  pension, under  Rule  55-A  of  the  CCS  (Pension)  Rules 1972, the State Government has not imposed any condition  expressly providing that the Dearness Relief on Pension shall not be admissible to the Corporate  Sector  Employees  who  were  covered and governed under 1999 Scheme i.e. [who had retired or died or were discharged from service between  the  date  of  applicability  of  Scheme till the repeal of Scheme from 01.04.1999 to 02.12.2004]. In  absence  of  any  express  condition in  the  orders  granting  relief  on  pension,  that the  Dearness  Relief  on  Pension  was  liable  to be   stopped   or   discontinued   in   the   given   or specified  eventualities  by  the  State  Authorities  or the Respondent Corporation therefore, the abrupt stoppage  or  discontinuance  of  relief  in  Pension of  the  petitioners  in  January-February  2016 which  stretched  over  till  July  2022  defeats  the very  object  and  intent  of  giving  dearness  relief to the petitioners-retirees, despite being covered under the Scheme [applicable w.e.f. 1.4.1999 till 02.12.2004]. The Basic Pension and the Dearness Relief on Pension, cumulatively constitutes the property  of  an  employee  or  a  pensioner,  within the  meaning  of  Article  300-A  of  the  Constitution of India and the petitioners could not be deprived of their such property flowing from 1999 Scheme and Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 “without  any  authority  of  Law”,  which  neither exists  nor  has  the  same  been  pointed  out  by the Respondents, in the instant case. Thus, legal entitlements for relief on pension which have accrued  to  the  petitioners-retirees  by  virtue  of Rule  55-A  of  CCS  (Pension)  Rules  and  Scheme of 1999 [Annexure P-I] cannot be withheld, curtailed, restricted, denied or delayed to the petitioners without  any  authority  of  law. Unless  and  until State  Authority  by  virtue  of  any  law  [which is none in instant case] provided for not granting dearness  relief  on  pension  till  then,  the  right and legal entitlement cannot be curtailed, restricted denied,  negated  or  delayed  by  the  Respondents to the petitioners herein. 8(iii). Indisputably, the Respondents have given the  basic  pension  and  dearness  relief  on  pension to the petitioners prior to January-February 2016 and  after  July  2022. Once,  the  respondents  inter se have themselves admitted the entitlement for dearness  relief  on  pension  by  releasing  the  same in  terms  of  the  scheme  and  the  CCS  (Pension) Rules  therefore,  it  does  not  lies  in  the  mouth of  the  Respondents  herein  to  either  withhold, curtail,  restrict,  deny  or  stop  the  Dearness  Relief on Pension for intervening period from January- February 2016, pursuant to communication dated 17.01.2016  [Annexure  A-3]  till  July  2022  so as  to  defeat  the  accrued  and  vested  right  of  the petitioners-retirees-family pensioners of Dearness Relief on Pension as per Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension)  Rules  when,  such  relief  in  pension  is a legal entitlements, which is payable the retirees- family pensioners, who are covered/governed by 1999 Scheme, to cope up and meet the inflation and price rise. Denial or deprivation of Dearness Relief  on  Pension  for  the  Period  from  January 2016  to  July  2022  or  such  like  period  is  dehors the Scheme, contrary to Rule 55-A of the CCS (Pension)  Rules  1972  and  the  mandate  of  law in the  case of  B.S. Himalvi (supra). DIRECTIONS 9. In view of above discussion and for the reasons  recorded  hereinabove,  the  instant  petition is allowed, in the following terms: (i). DIRECTIONS 9. In view of above discussion and for the reasons  recorded  hereinabove,  the  instant  petition is allowed, in the following terms: (i). Communications   dated   19.01.2016 & 17.02.2016 [Annexures A-3 & A-4] discontinuing  the  Dearness  Relief on Pension of the petitioners from January/February,  2016  onwards July 2022 or such like period is quashed and set aside; (ii). State Authorities and Respondent No.3-Corporation   are   directed   to restore, revive and to release the Dearness Relief on Pension to the petitioners [retirees as well as family pensioners from January-February 2016  till  July  2022  or  such  like due dates within two months from today; (iii). Action of the Respondents 1 to 3 herein, in discontinuing or stopping Dearness Relief on Pension/Family Pension to the petitioners being contrary to 1999 Scheme and dehors Rule  55-A  and  mandate  of  law, in the case of B.S.  Himalvi  (supra) is  declared  inoperative  and  illegal qua petitioners; and the impugned stoppage ; is accordingly set-aside; (iv). Parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, instant petition along  with  all  miscellaneous  application(s),  if any, shall stand  disposed of.