Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 533 (HP)

Anil Manuja v. State of H. P.

2023-12-14

RANJAN SHARMA

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Ranjan Sharma, J.) Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner, having retired from the post Superintending Engineer from Jal Shakti Circle, Rohru District Shimla from the Respondent-Department, has filed the instant writ petition, with the following prayers:- “(i) That the writ in the nature of mandamus of other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to pay arrear of pay as per revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till the date of its realization and they shall also pay the arrear of revise pension, revised gratuity, revised leave encashment and revised commuted pension, along with interest @ 6% per annum till the date of its realizations.” 3. Case of the petitioner is that the respondents-State have framed the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2022, as per Notification dated 3rd January, 2022, Annexure P-1. Mr. Mandeep Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consequent upon the issuance of Notification, dated 3rd January, 2022, the respondents were duty bound to grant the benefit of (i) arrears on account of revision of pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commutation, family pension and pay arrear for the period 01.01.2016 to 28.02.2023 and (ii) revised retiral benefits as per Notification dated 25.02.2022 i.e. revised pension, revised gratuity, revised leave encashment and revised commuted pension and pay to the petitioner-retiree. 4. Learned counsel further submits that firstly, respondents have not released the arrears of pay for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 as yet; secondly, as per Notification dated 25.02.2022, the respondents have not released the Revised Benefits i.e. leave encashment, commuted pension, DCRG, arrears of pension and pay, under the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 nor have the respondents released the admissible arrears of revised pension for the period w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and the arrears of Revised Gratuity; and thirdly, the arrears of Revised Leave Encashment and Revised Commuted Pension has neither been assessed/ sanctioned nor released to the petitioner till day. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given details of the pending arrears of the petitioner in Para 4 of the writ petition, which is as under:- Sr. No. Details of Arrears Balance Amount 1. Arrear of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2020 7,06,765/- 2. Arrear of revised pension w.e.f. 01.07.2020 to 31.01.2022 2,61,667/- 3. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has given details of the pending arrears of the petitioner in Para 4 of the writ petition, which is as under:- Sr. No. Details of Arrears Balance Amount 1. Arrear of revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.2016 to 30.06.2020 7,06,765/- 2. Arrear of revised pension w.e.f. 01.07.2020 to 31.01.2022 2,61,667/- 3. Arrear of Gratuity 8,00,000/- 4. Arrear of Earned leave encashment 3,90,130/- 5. Commuted pension 16,88,300/- 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, on the judgment passed by this Court, in CWP No.5651 of 2023, tilted as Dr. Sunil Kumar Chandel and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 26.09.2023, CWP No.7895 of 2023, titled as Krishan Lal & others Versus State of H.P. & others, decided on 18.10.2023. He also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7359 of 2021, titled as Amita Gupta Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 01.12.2022, granting the revised leave encashment on the basis of revised pay. He further submits that the judgment in case of Amita Gupta (supra) stands implemented and in CWP No.2108 of 2023 titled as Bhagat Ram Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, decided on 31.05.2023, Annexure P-3, whereby this Court has mandated the respondents therein to release the arrears of pay as well as revised retiral benefits alongwith arrears with interest @ 6% per annum from the due date till its realization. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the judgment in case of Bhagat Ram (supra) has not attained finality, as the HRTC-Respondent therein has filed a Review Petition, which is pending listing/hearing. 8. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, this Court permits him to make a representation for claiming above benefits. The prayer being innocuous, is not opposed and needs to be granted. 9. Accordingly, as prayed for, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation, to respondent No.2-Engineer- In-Chief, HPPWD, Himachal Pradesh, within three weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to examine/consider and decide the representation by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly. 10. Accordingly, as prayed for, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to make a representation, to respondent No.2-Engineer- In-Chief, HPPWD, Himachal Pradesh, within three weeks from today; with further directions to the aforesaid respondent to examine/consider and decide the representation by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter. Ordered accordingly. 10. Needless to say that, this Court has not adverted to the rival contentions and merits of the matter and all Questions of facts and law are left open. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition as well as the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of, accordingly.