KARTAR SINGH NEGI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner herein are one Dr. Kartar Singh Negi, superannuated from service on 21/4/1993. During the tenure of his service, he was 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 petitioner, in the extant writ petition, are with respect of a notification, borne in Annexure A-2, made on 28/7/1998, wherethrough, 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 petitioner, who is pre 1/9/1997 and pre 2006 retiree. Consequently, the writ petitioner, 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 petitioner 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, wherethrough, 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 pre 1/9/1997 and pre-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.