IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 6111 of 2008 Date of decision: 1.11.2010 Lekh Ram Thakur ….. 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. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Central Govt. Counsel, for respondent No.3. Kuldip Singh, J(Oral). The petitioner has prayed the following relief in the petition:- 1. “That the impugned order dated 16.6.1999 Annexure P-2 may kindly be quashed and set-aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the applicant for revision of pension in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1513/15 of 93 arising out of SLP (C) No.12929-31 of 92, titled as Sunita Sharma and others versus State of H.P. and others which is necessary in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits as Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… per judgment dated 29.3.1993 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1513-15 of 1993, titled Sunita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. The respondents No.1 & 2 have not filed any reply. The respondent No.3 has filed the reply and para-6 of the reply reads as follows:- “……… that Pension case of the applicant who had retired from the Govt. Service w.e.f. 30.9.1989 for revision of Pensionary benefits on account of Promotion as Principal was forwarded by the Respondent Department vide its letter dated 26.7.96. On Scrutiny of the case it was noticed that as per letter dated 27.6.95 (Copy enclosed) as annexure R-1) issued by the Respondent No.2, the promotion of the applicant was made on Notional basis being no financial benefit was given to the applicant. As per rule 33 & 34 of C.C.S. (P), Rules, 1972 if there is no actual increase in the emoluments and the emoluments which were not actually drawn does not qualify for determination of Average Emoluments for revision of Pension Benefits. Accordingly, the pension case of the Applicant was returned vide letter dated 26.8.96 ( Copy enclosed as Annexure R-2)…”. 3. The respondent No.3 has not denied the notional promotion of petitioner as Principal. The stand of respondent No.3 is that petitioner is not entitled to revision of pensionary benefits on account of his notional retirement as Principal, the petitioner has not actually been paid the salary of Principal. This plea is not available to the respondent NO.3 in as much as The Supreme Court in Sunita Sharma (supra) has directed as follows:- …3… “We, therefore, direct that the promotions should be effected notionally from the respective dates of their entitlements. However, neither the higher salaries received by those who were not entitled to the said posts should be recovered from them nor the arrears of higher salaries be paid to those who though entitled were not appointed to the higher posts on the due dates.” 4. It is thus clear that even though petitioner is not entitled to actual arrears of salary on account of his notional promotion as Principal but petitioner is certainly entitled to revision of pensionary benefits. Accordingly, respondents are directed to give pension to the petitioner by taking notional increase to the pay of the petitioner as Principal and the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of supply of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to respondent No.3/competent authority. 5. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. November 1, 2010 (Kuldip Singh), (sks) Judge.