VED PARKASH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioners herein are one Dr. Ved Parkash Sharma, and, one Dr. Chander Kanta Sharma. Dr. Ved Parkash Sharma, superannuated from service on 2/12/1997, whereas, Dr. Chander Kanta Sharma, also superannuated from service on 2/12/1997. During the tenure of their services, both were in receipt of Non Practicing Allowance (NPA). The grant of NPA was in terms of Fundamental Rule ((21)(a)(i) read with Fundamental Rule 9 (21(a)(ii), and, Rules whereof, read as under:-

(2.) The grievance(s) as ventilated by the petitioners, in the extant writ petition are with respect of a notification, borne in Annexure A-2, made on 28/7/1998, where through, though benefits of 25% NPA of basic pay, for the purpose of calculating retiral benefits including revised pension w.e.f. 1/9/1997, became bestowed, yet became restricted only to the serving as well as to those doctors who retired on and after 1/9/1997 and 1/1/2006,and hence it became denied to the petitioners, who are pre 1/9/1997/2/12/1997 and pre 2006 retirees. Consequently, the writ petitioners, pray for the afore Annexure A-2, and, of Annexure A-5, rather making the afore restrictions, being quashed and set aside. Moreover, the writ petitioners also cast a challenge upon the notifications respectively made on 31/8/1989, on 14/10/2009, and, on 21/5/2013, as respectively embodied in Annexure A-3, Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-7, where through, the benefit(s) of component of 25% NPA as a part of basic pay, for the purpose of calculating retiral benefits, has been denied to those retirees, whose superannuation occurred w.e.f. 2/12/1997 and 1/1/2006.

(3.) The afore grievances as ventilated in the writ petition, and, in respect whereof, a mandamus for theirs being quashed and set aside, is, asked, for being pronounced by this Court, is not longer res integra, and/or is covered by a verdict made by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in a case titled as Dr. D.R. Barwal ( now deceased) through his legal representatives Smt. Usha Barwal and others vs. State of H.P. and Others, bearing CWPOA No. 1184 of 2020, decided on 4/5/2021. Consequently, the stand in opposition to the writ claim as reared by the State of Himachal Pradesh does not carry any profound weight, and, nor is legally sustainable.