IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 9333 of 2008. Decided on: October 28, 2010. Rajinder Kumar …..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & ors. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Lokinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “i) That the impugned action of the respondents which denies the pensionary benefits to the applicant may be held illegal and void ab-initio and applicant may be held entitled for pensionary benefits from the date of his relieving and further directions be issued to the respondents to sanction retiral benefits to the applicant forthwith and the retrial benefits be paid to the applicant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. ii) That Rule 26(1) of the C.C.S. Pension Rules, 1972 may be held unconstitutional, ultra-vires and be quashed.” 2. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in this case, it is not necessary for us to deal with the validity of the Rules as raised in prayer (ii). Therefore, that prayer is left open. 3. It is seen from the reply that the question of pension is still under consideration. Annexure A-3, is an order passed by the District Collector in terms of sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules, 1965. We are afraid, the order passed by the District Collector is only misconceived since Rule 5 deals with the termination of service of notice. The case of the petitioner is only 2 resignation, for which he has already served Annexure A-2, notice. Therefore, there will be a direction to the District Collector to pass appropriate order on Annexure A-2, ignoring Annexure A-3. 4. It is seen from the reply that the question of pension was still under consideration. There will be direction to the respondents to take a final decision in the matter, if not already taken, within a period of three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment, by the petitioner. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 28, 2010. ( Justice V.K. Sharma ), (karan/vs) Judge.