The court's decision emphasized the right of the petitioner to seek benefits under the relevant rules, allowing for a representation to be made.

JUDGMENT :

Ranjan Sharma, J.

Notice. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively.

2. The petitioner, being a retiree, from the post of Peon on 30.04.2020, has filed the instant writ petition, with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to pay arrears of pay revision to the petitioner on and w.e.f. 1.1.2016 till 31.08.2020 along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date the same became payable to the petitioner.

(i) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to pay arrears of pension to the petitioner on account of revision of their pay scale by calculating the same along with inters @ 9% p.a. from the date the same became payable to the petitioner.

(ii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to pay balance amount of the leave encashment which became payable to the petitioner after revision of the pay scale by calculating the same along with interest @9% pa. from the date it became payable to the petitioner.

(iii) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to pay the amount of gratuity which has become available to the petitioner along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date it became payable to the petitioner.

(iv) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to pay arrears with respect to the commutation of pension which already stood calculated by the parent department and sanctioned by respondent No.3, with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date it became payable to the petitioner.”

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. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, 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 31.08.2020 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 to 31.08.2020 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 to 31.08.2020 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 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, Annexure P-4, 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 i