IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T)No. 10018 of 2008. Date of decision: 4.4.2011. Vishal Chand Katoch …..Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has prayed a direction to the respondents to give to petitioner the benefit of revised pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits including arrears from 1.4.1999 onwards by re-fixing the pay at Rs.660/- in the pay scale of Rs.400- 660 and the revised pay scale thereof forthwith. The petitioner has also claimed interest at the rate of 18% on the arrears w.e.f. 1.4.1999 onwards. In alternative, the petitioner has prayed that respondents maybe directed to fix the pay of the petitioner at Rs.660/- or as nearer stage as per Annexures A-1 and A-2 and other pay fixation orders as applicable with effect from the date of appointment on 20.7.1987 instead of lower pay at Rs.420/- including the benefit of pay fixation in the revised pay scale and the arrears accruing therefrom till Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… retirement on 31.3.1999 forthwith. The petitioner has prayed interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the alternative claim. 2. The petitioner has based his claim on the basis of instructions dated 2.8.1983 Annexure A-1 and dated 18.12.1991 Annexure A-2. In the reply, the respondents in para 6 (xiv), have specifically taken a stand that pay of the petitioner has been fixed by the respondents strictly in accordance with OM’s issued on 2.8.1983 and 18.12.1991. The pay of the petitioner has been fixed at a stage equal to the last pay drawn in the army at the time of his retirement from the army. The petitioner has not been given less pay every month during service and less amount of retiral benefit and less pension every month since 1.4.1999 onwards till date. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder denying that his pay was not fixed as per instructions dated 2.8.1983 and 18.12.1991. 3. In view of specific stand of the respondents that pay of the petitioner has been fixed in accordance with OM’s issued on 2.8.1983 and 18.12.1991, there is no merit in the petition, since the petitioner himself has based his petition on the basis of OM’s dated 2.8.1983 and 1812.1991. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. April 4, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.