The court reaffirms that for Class-IV employees regularised after 10.05.2001, but retired before 21.02.2018 at age 58, their retirement is deemed at 60 years only for notional pension calculation—not for actual salary or other benefits for the intervening period. The judgment relies on and upholds Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, and is binding on all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh for similar public service pension cases.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/1630/2022 of Balwant Singh Vs State of HP and Others |
| CNR | HPHC010386392021 |
| Date of Registration | 22-03-2022 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh for pension fixation of similarly situated public servants |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms earlier decision in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No. 2711/2017, decided 22.02.2022) |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Pension Law (Public Sector Employment) |
| Questions of Law | Whether an employee regularised after 10.05.2001 and retired before 21.02.2018 at age 58 is entitled to actual salary/pension from date of actual retirement to deemed date of superannuation (60 years), or only notional fixation for pension purposes. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that employees in the specified category are deemed to have retired at 60 years only for the purpose of calculating pensionable benefits. They are not entitled to actual salary or monetary benefits for the notional period between 58 and 60 years, as they did not perform duties during that interval. However, their last pay for pension is to be notionally fixed till the notional date of retirement (at age 60), and pension is then recalculated and paid accordingly, including consequential arrears on that basis. This position flows directly from the precedent in Baldev Singh. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The principle of non-discrimination among similarly situated employees; the distinction between actual monetary benefits for service actually rendered and notional fixation for pension computation (as per Baldev Singh and Ghindro Ram decisions). |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was a Class-IV employee initially engaged as a daily wager in 1992, conferred work charge status in 2002, regularised in 2007, and retired at 58 years in May 2016. The employer sanctioned pension from 01.01.2018 after the Baldev Singh ruling, and after intervention paid pension arrears. The dispute arose regarding whether payment was due from the actual date of retirement (2016) or the notional retirement (2018). |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh; pension authorities handling similar cases |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with regularisation and notional retirement age issues in public employment |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reinforces that only notional pay fixation up to the age of 60 is permitted for pension calculation, not actual salary or other monetary benefits, for employees regularised after the cut-off date but retired before enhancement of the superannuation age.
- Lawyers can confidently advise similarly placed employees that intervention is limited to notional pension computation—there is no precedent for actual pay or allowances for the notional period.
- The court clarifies administrative procedures for the calculation and payment of pension arrears based on notional retirement age.
- The ruling standardises administrative response by requiring compliance with Baldev Singh for all alike cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court traced the issue to the principle laid down in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which held that Class-IV employees regularised after 10.05.2001, but retired before the 21.02.2018 notification, are to be treated as retiring at age 60 only for the notional fixation of pay for pension purposes.
- The actual monetary benefits (salary/wages) for the intervening period between age 58 and 60 are not payable since these employees did not work during this interval.
- Relying on the equality principle, the court followed the logic that similarly placed employees should not face discrimination but reiterated that notional benefits do not equate to actual monetary entitlements.
- The judgment carefully distinguished between the grant of notional benefits for computation versus entitlement to actual payment for unrendered service.
- Previous judgments in Ghindro Ram and Baldev Singh were cited and applied by the court in deciding that the petitioner’s claim, after notional fixation and arrears of pension, was fully redressed and no further sums were payable.
- The petition was thus disposed of on account of compliance by the State in line with binding precedent.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Initially contended that he was retired at age 58 and should be entitled to pension and arrears from the date of actual retirement.
- Argued that withholding salary/pension for the two-year notional period (58–60 years) caused irreparable loss and amounted to penalising him for the administration’s own delay/inconsistency.
- Sought direction for payment of all consequential benefits as allowed under Ghindro Ram and Baldev Singh.
Respondents (State of Himachal Pradesh)
- Contended that, following Baldev Singh, the petitioner is deemed to retire at 60 for pension computation only, not for actual payment of salary for the period not worked.
- Clarified via supplementary affidavit that the petitioner’s pay was notionally fixed up to 60 years and pension revised accordingly, with due arrears paid as per the revised notional fixation.
- Asserted that there was full compliance with relevant court directions and no remaining legal or monetary entitlement beyond notional pension benefits.
Factual Background
The petitioner was first engaged as a daily wage worker in the Forest Department in 1992, conferred work charge status in 2002, and regularised as Mali in 2007. He was compulsorily retired by the respondents on attaining the age of 58 in May 2016. Subsequent to the pronouncement of Baldev Singh, his case was processed for pension, and pension was eventually sanctioned from a notional retirement date (01.06.2018). The petitioner sought arrears from the actual date of retirement, resulting in court-monitored clarification and payment of notional arrears per the established legal position.
Statutory Analysis
- The core provisions discussed emanate from service law regulations relating to superannuation, regularisation, and computation of pension under Himachal Pradesh government rules.
- The court closely interpreted directives issued by the State and judicial rules concerning the increase in superannuation age and how such changes are to be notionally applied for pension computation, without resulting in unearned monetary benefits.
- No statutory provision was read down or interpreted expansively; the court strictly applied the rule per the authoritative Baldev Singh precedent.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions were recorded in this single-bench judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed the respondents to file supplementary affidavits specifically addressing the precise manner of notional pay fixation and payment of arrears—a procedural step ensuring transparent compliance with precedent in individual service law matters.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms and faithfully applies the earlier ruling in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
Citations
- Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., CWP No. 2711/2017, decided on 22.02.2022
- Ghindro Ram v. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No. 2414/2020, decided on 14.08.2023