HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. 1024 of 2005 Date of Decision: 2.1.2008 J. R. Kapoor and others ……. Petitioners. versus Union of India & others …….. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioners : Mr. Surinder Sharma, Advocate. For respondents 2 & 3 : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. A.G. For respondent Nos.1 & 4: Mr. Janesh Mahajan, Central Govt. Counsel. For respondent No.5 : Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioners herein, 12 in numbers are/were employees of the State Social Welfare Advisory Board. They are claiming pensionary /gratuity benefits at par with the employees of the State Social Welfare Advisory Board of the neighbouring States. Upon notice having been issued to the respondents, respondents No.1 & 4 vide their affidavit dated 18th May, 2006 have stated as under:- “That in the year 1979 the replying respondents have already agreed to give it share i.e. (50%) towards the pension of the State Boards Employee subject to the concurrence of the State Govt. to give rest of the 50% share. But till date no concurrence has been forwarded by the State 2 Govt. In the absence of the same, the replying respondent could not proceed with the matter. That in view of submissions made supra, in case the State Govt. grants its concurrence then only the replying respondents can proceed further in the grant of pension to the State Boards employees.” Keeping in view the aforesaid stand of the Central Govt., the learned counsel for the parties jointly submit and agree that keeping in light the stand taken by the Union of India and the Central Social Welfare Advisory Board, the State be directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioners afresh. Keeping in view the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, more particularly the stand now taken by the Union of India, the State is accordingly directed to consider the petitioners’ claim afresh and take a decision after affording due opportunities of hearing to the petitioners. The State shall assign reasons while arriving at its conclusion. Since the claim of the petitioners is very stale, the State is directed to take a decision on or before 31st March, 2008. Since the petition is not being decided on merits, it shall always be open for the petitioners to approach this Court, assailing the decision taken by the State, if so required. The petition is disposed of. CMPs No. 1987/2005 and 2187/2007 Learned counsel for the parties do not press these applications. Copy dasti. ( Sanjay Karol ) Judge. January 2, 2008 (rana)