Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9757 (HP)

GOPAL SWAROOP v. STATE OF HP AND ANR

CWP/1464/2026 · 2026-05-05

Ajay Mohan Goel

Public Interest Litigationbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1464 of 2026 Decided on 05th May 2026 Sh. Gopal Swaroop Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. HKS Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondents be directed to settle the pension case of the petitioner at the earliest any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was initially working on regular basis in the Agro Industrial Packaging India Ltd. In the year 2005, the petitioner was declared as a surplus 2 employee of AIPIL and was sent on secondment basis to the Health Department. Thereafter, he was permanently absorbed in the Health Department w.e.f. 06.01.2007. The petitioner superannuated on 29.04.2023 having rendered more than 10 years of service as from the date of permanent absorption in the Department. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though, after the respondent-State introduced the policy of giving the choice to the retired government employees to opt for either the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme, the petitioner duly applied for grant of pension under the Old Pension Scheme, but, no decision was being taken by the Authority thereupon, hence this petition. 4. Learned Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the State submitted that in terms of the decision taken by the Government while restoring the Old Pension Scheme, the Government servants, who were appointed between 15.05.2003 to 31.03.2023 were given one time option to opt for the old pension scheme within 60 days from the date of issuance of notification dated 04.05.2023. However, the 3 petitioner did not exercise the option within the said prescribed period and his case now stands rejected by the office of the Accountant General as has been conveyed in terms of Annexure R-2/3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that this Court in CWP No.7097 of 2024, titled Phoolmati versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 31.12.2024 has held that the rigors of memorandum dated 04.05.2023 with regard to the period of 60 days mentioned therein to exercise the option cannot be construed in a harsh manner, more so against Class-IV employees who would hardly know that any memorandum stands issued in this regard by the Government and some act has to be performed by the incumbent. Learned counsel submitted that the Court has further held that the least that is expected from an employer with regard to Class-III and Class-IV employees is that they should inform such like employees of the memorandum and seek their options within some reasonable time. Thereafter, if the incumbents do not exercise their option within some reasonable time, then the Department can proceed 4 in the matter in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case no such option was ever sought from the petitioner and, therefore, the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the said ground is not sustainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioner herein retired as a Class-IV employee and that too in the year 2023 the rejection of the case of the petitioner to opt for the old pension scheme is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. This Court would like to refer to its judgment in CWP No.7097 of 2024, titled Phoolmati versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, relevant potion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:- “Be that as it may, in view of the fact that the petitioner retired as a Class-IV employee, from the Agriculture Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, this Court is of the considered view that the rigors of memorandum dated 04.05.2023 qua the period mentioned therein for the exercise of option, cannot be construed in a harsh manner against an incumbent like the petitioner as a Class-IV employee would hardly be knowing that any memorandum also stands issued by the Government and an act has to be performed by her, in the light of said memorandum. The least that is expected from an employer with regard to 5 Class-III and Class-IV employees is that they should inform such like employees of the memorandum and seek their options, within some reasonable time. If they do not do so within reasonable time, then the Department can proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the option submitted by the petitioner on 04.11.2023, be treated as a valid option and the case of the petitioner for grant of pension be processed accordingly. Let needful be done, within a period of three months from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 8. The findings quoted hereinabove in Phoolmati versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (supra) are applicable in the present case also. In the absence of any option being sought from the petitioner by the employer, the rejection on the ground of delay cannot be sustained in law. 9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by quashing the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay in terms of documents which stand appended with the reply, with the direction to the employer to seek an option from the petitioner with regard to opting for the Old Pension Scheme within some reasonable time. In case, the petitioner exercises the option within the time granted, then, the Department may proceed with the same in terms of the option, otherwise, it may 6 proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 10. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 05, 2026 (Vinod)