IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 457 of 2008. Date of decision: 29.6.2010. Mansa Ram ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. and ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Asstt. Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 4. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CMP(T) No. 77 of 2010. Allowed and the parties are brought on record. CWP(T) No. 457 of 2008. 2. The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:- (i) That the directions may be issued to the respondents to pay the pension to the applicant as is applicable to Class- III employees. (ii) That the arrears may be ordered to be calculated and paid to the applicant alongwith interest @ 12% from the due date to secure the ends of law and justice. 3. In reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, it has been stated as follows:- - 2 - “That the pension was given to the applicant as per the P.P.O. dated 15.4.1988 @ Rs.375/- per month Annexure vide R-1 but the same was revised to Rs.398/- per month as per the revised P.P.O. dated 3.6.1988 vide Annexure R-2 by calculating the average emoluments for last 10 months of his service as a Motor Mate (Class-III) and the contention that his retired benefits have been calculated by treating him as a Mate is factually incorrect and untenable. Mere misdiscription of the applicant as `Mate’ instead of `Motor Mate’ in the P.P.O/ Revised P.P.O. cannot be the basis to assume hypothetically that he has been given pensionary benefits of lower category of Mate (Class-IV) when, the same were given in basis of last pay drawn as Motor Mate (Class-III). “ 4. In case the petitioners have any dispute with regard to the factual position as stated above, it will be open for them to point out the same before the first respondent by filing representation, in which case the first respondent will examine the matter with notice to the petitioners and take appropriate action in accordance with law. This shall be done within a period of four months from the date of production of copy of this judgement alongwith a copy of writ petition by the writ petitioners. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. June 29, 2010 (Justice Kuldip Singh), (Hem) Judge.