Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTSNA REWAL DUA
Ayodhya Dass – Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and respondents No.5 and 6, respectively.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for disposal at this stage.
2. Petitioner was engaged on part-time basis in the respondent-Education Department. His services were regularized in the year 2003. He retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation in October 2012 at the age of 58 years, after rendering nine years of regular service. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents gave him benefit of Baldev Singh Vs. State of H.P. and others,
3. On 04.05.2023, State Finance Department notified the Central Civil Services (Pension) (Hi
The court emphasized that strict timelines for exercising pension options should not be applied harshly against lower-class employees unaware of such requirements.
The court emphasized the need for reasonable notice to employees regarding option exercise timelines for pension eligibility, particularly for lower-class employees unaware of such requirements.
The court ruled that procedural rigidity should not deny pension benefits to employees, especially when eligibility is undisputed, emphasizing fair treatment for lower-grade employees.
The right to voluntary retirement is substantive and governed by the rules in effect at the time of application, not amendments enacted thereafter.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
