IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 10065 of 2008 Date of Decision : March 28, 2011 Jagdish Chand Petitioner Versus HPSEB and others Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Respondents themselves have placed on record two documents (Annexure RA-I and RA-II). Annexure RA-II is the service book wherein the date of birth of the petitioner stands corrected from 10.7.1938 to 13.9.1941. It is not in dispute that petitioner retired in the year 1999 and his retrial benefits were also fixed in terms of communications dated 12.5.2003 (Annexure A-1), 7.6.2003 (Annexure A-2) and 12.5.2003 (Annexure A-3) wherein also his date of retirement was taken to be as 30.9.1999. Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. However respondents issued another communication dated 26.5.2003 (Annexure RA-I) which reads as under:- “To The Chief Engineer (OP) North, HPSEB, Dharamshala. Subject: Pension case of Shri Jagdish Chand, Foreman, retired on 30.9.1999. Reference: Your office letter No. 200059/CC/DR/S/2002-18663-65 dated 28.10.2002. I am to convey the approval of the Board for change/alteration in the date of birth from 10.7.1938 to 13.9.1941 in favour of Shri Jagdish Chand, Foreman, retired on 30.9.1999, without pensionary benefits, for the period 1.8.1996 to 30.9.1999 (i.e. actual date of retirement). It is requested that the necessary action in the matter may be taken accordingly at your end. The Service Book (in IV Parts) of Sh. Jagdish Chand, Foreman (Rtd.) is sent herewith for necessary action. DA:-Service Book (in IV Parts) Sd/- H.P. State Electy. Board, Shimla-171004.” 3. On the basis of this communication consequential orders (Annexure A-7) for recovery of the retrial benefits received by the petitioner for the period 31.7.1996 up to 30.9.1999 were issued. This action of the respondents is totally contradictory to Annexure RA-II. Undisputedly petitioner had satisfactorily rendered his services and discharged his duties up to 30.9.1999. His service 3 record was corrected by the respondents themselves. If this was so, then where was the occasion to have considered his period of service, between 1.8.1996 up to 30.9.1999, to be without pensionary benefits. In these circumstances action taken by the respondents is illegal. Annexure A-7 is accordingly quashed. All consequential benefits to follow. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 28, 2011 (PK)