IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA COPC No.545 of 2026 Decided on: 14.05.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Raju Ram . ....Petitioner Versus Devesh Kumar and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Ms. Rekha Thakur, Advocate, respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner alleges breach of following directions issued in Raju Ram Vs. State of H.P. and others2:- “For these reasons, the impugned office order dated 06.05.2025 (Annexure P-5) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 CWP No. 9708 of 2025 decided on 19.06.2025 - 2 - of pensionary benefits to him afresh in accordance with law and taking into consideration the decision rendered in Roop Lal as also the aspects noticed hereinabove, within a period of four weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” 2. Contempt petition itself places on record Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued by the respondents on 02.03.2026 (Annexure C-2), whereunder, petitioner has been allowed pension w.e.f. 01.04.2023. . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled to pension w.e.f. 01.01.2018. Since there was no specific directions in Raju Ram2 to the respondents to sanction pension in favour of the petitioner from a particular date and if according to the petitioner, he is entitled to pension from 01.01.2018 and not from 01.04.2023 i.e. the date from which pension has been sanctioned in his favour, it is for him to seek appropriate substantive remedy for the redressal of his surviving grievances. In view of Pension Payment Order (Annexure C-2) issued by the respondents, the respondents cannot be held - 3 - to be in breach of the directions issued in Raju Ram2. 4. With the above observations, present contempt proceedings are closed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 14, 2026 R.Atal