IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15543 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Pratap Chand …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________

Coram: o Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Verma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3/State.

Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

____________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral)

Petitioner herein, who was initially appointed as a Peon gon daily wage basis in the head office of H.P. State Cooperative iMarketing & Consumers Federation Limited, was regularised as Class-IV on 01.01.1984. On 16.02.2008, services of the petitioner were taken over by the Department of Information Technology, Himachal Pradesh, on secondment basis and finally vide order dated 16.02.2008, he was absorbed in afore department and w.e.f. afore date till his superannuation on 31.10.2019, petitioner served as Peon in the Department of Information Technology, H.P.

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated

04.05.2023 issued by the Finance (Pension) DepartmentP provided that Government servants appointed/retired during the period w.e.f. 15.05.2003 to 31.03.2023 covered under Contributory Pension Scheme (National Pension System), may opt t o shift to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, oas a result thereof, they shall get the pensionary benefits under afo re rules subject to deposit of the Government contribution and dividend/return earned thereon, under the National Pension System, to the State Government.

3. On 08o.02.2024, petitioner exercised option for Old Pension SchCeme in terms of Notification dated 04.05.2023, but same came to be rejected vide communication dated 09.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) on the ground that option, which was to be exercised within a period of 60 days, in terms of Notification dated 04.05.2023, was not iexercised. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:

“i. That the rejection of pension case of the petitioner vide Annexure P-5, may kindly be quashed.

i. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for coverage under the old pension rule by condoning the delay in submission for the option for Old Pension, in the interest of justice and equity.

ii. That the respondents may be ordered to pay pension to the petitioner as per notification dated 4.5.2023, under the Old Pension Rules, 1972 from the due date, with all benefits incidental thereof.”

4. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant .proceedings, respondents/State has filed reply, wherein facts, as have been noticed hereinabove, have not been disputed, but an attempt has been made to refute the claim of the petitioner on the ground that in terms of Notification dated 04.05.2 023, an employee desirous of availing benefit under Old Penrsion Scheme was required to exercise option within a period of 60 days, but in the case at hand, petitioner exercised such option after expiry of 60 days. Though in the petition, learned counsel representing the petitioner specifically referred to judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in bunch of petitions i.e. CWP No.11004 of 2025, titled as Reshmo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, along with connected matters, wherein similar issue came to be decided, but such fact has not been specifically denied by the respondents.

5. Having carefully perused judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Reshmo Devi (supra), this Court is persuaded to agree with learned counsel representing the petitioner that issue