LEKH RAM THAKUR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed the following relief in the petition:-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits as 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:-

(3.) 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.