Atma Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No.201 CM-21019-2023 IN/AND Decided on:22.05.2026 Atma Singh and others . . . Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA

Present:

Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anshul Labana, Advocate and Mr. D. S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Sahni, Additional Advocate General, Haryana assisted by Mr. Harmanjit Singh Johal, Advocate. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) With consent of the parties, the main case is taken on Board today itself.

2.

The petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 04.07.2014, Annexure P-26 to P-46, whereby the benefit of pension already granted to the petitioners vide orders, Annexures P-5 to P-25, in corresponding pay scales of `37,400-67,000+ G.P. `8700, in terms of Rule 6 of the Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009, was ordered to be withdrawn. Further, a direction has been sought to the respondents to given them pension in terms of the said orders, Annexures P-5 to P-25.

-23.

Learned senior counsel contended that another similarly placed pensioner earlier approached this Court by filing CWP-16011-2021 titled Som Nath Manocha v. State of Haryana and others, for setting aside the order whereby the revised pension granted to him was unilaterally recommended to be withdrawn by the respondents. The petition was allowed with the consent of the parties, including the State of Haryana, by recording as under: [2].

Both the parties are ad idem that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the ratio laid down in CWP No.26015 of 2013 titled K.L. Vasudeva and others Vs. State of Haryana and another decided on 16.05.2023. The only difference is that in the aforesaid case, the petitioners sought quashing of impugned order, dismissing their claim for grant of revised pension as per pay structure, whereas in the present case, such relief was earlier granted to the petitioner and thereafter, it was sought to be withdrawn. In K.L. Vasudeva and others case (supra), the petitioners therein were held entitled to revised/modified pension in corresponding scale of Rs.3740067000/-+8700/- G.P. w.e.f. 18.10.2011. The petitioners in the said writ petition were held entitled for all consequential benefits arising from the aforesaid fixation along with interest @ 6% per annum from due date till final realisation of the amount and the consequential benefits were ordered to be implemented within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of that order.

[3]. In the present case, the aforesaid benefit had already been granted to the petitioner vide pension payment order dated 18.01.2021 and by the impugned action, the same benefit is recommended to be withdrawn by the respondent No.5 and the pension of the petitioner has been unilaterally reduced from a sum of Rs.54,762/- to Rs.47,507/-.

-34.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the facts aforementioned. Also, by referring to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents to the application, CM-21019-CWP-2023, he submits that SLP-14401-2024 and SLP-7876-2025, challenging the judgments rendered by this Court in CWP26015-2013 titled K. L. Vasudeva and others v. State of Haryana and another, and Som Nath Manocha case (supra), respectively, have been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide orders dated 09.07.2024 and 21.03.2025, respectively. 5.

In this view of the matter, the instant petition is allowed in terms of the aforementioned judgments by setting aside the impugned orders dated 04.07.2014, Annexure P-26 to P-46, and directing the respondents to grant pension to the petitioners as per orders Annexures P-5 to P-25 and release the consequential arrears with the interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the due date till the date of actual payment, within four weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order.

6.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 22.05.2026 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No