IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5281/2024 Decided on: 31.08.2026 Bihari Lal …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J CMP No. 21969/2026 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No. 5281/2024 Even though reply has not been filed by respondents No.3 & 4, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That the Petitioner may kindly be held entitled for regularization of his service/grant of work charge status w.e.f. due 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 date i.e. completion of 7 years of daily-waged service on 11.7.2017 with all consequential benefits. ii) That the Petitioner may also be held entitled for counting of daily waged services towards one year of regular services for the purpose of pension in terms of the judgment passed in Sunder Singh Vs State of H.P. & Others and benefits of Rule 49(3) of CCS (CCA) Rules for the purpose of pension. (iii) That after grant of regularization from due date and counting of daily waged services in terms of the judgment passed in Sunder Singh's case and benefit of Rule 49(3) of CCS (CCA) Rules, the Petitioner may kindly be held entitled for grant of service pension in terms of the judgment passed in Balo Devi Vs State of H.P. & Others in CA No.4792/2022 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 18.7.2022. ” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition, grievance of the petitioner and the relief prayed for have essentially been adjudicated upon in Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents are directed to examine the cases of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgments within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider 2Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022 3 and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments by passing appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 31st August, 2026(rohit)