IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8207 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.06.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Vijai Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. I.D.Bali, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Hitesh Bali, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “a. Direct the respondents to release all consequential benefits pursuant to implementation of Annexure P-2 b. Direct the respondents to release the pension based on OPS immediately. C. Direct the respondents to pay arrears of pension as due till the date of payment.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner, in a time bound manner taking note of subsequent developments. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that petitioner herein is aggrieved by the non-grant of pension under Old Pension Scheme. Petitioner had joined Education department on 07.08.2009 on contract basis as TGT (Arts). His services were regularized on 23.06.2015. He retired on 29.02.2024, after attaining the age of superannuation. At the time of retirement, regular services of the petitioner was eight years and as such, he was not held entitled for pension on account of his not having completed minimum service of ten years. 5. Petitioner herein filed petition for regularization, praying therein to issue directions to the respondents to take into consideration his contractual services for the purpose of qualifying 2 service for the pension. This Court allowed the petition on 07.01.2024. Though now on account of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, Government has already issued instructions, vide order dated 16.06.2024 (Annexure P-2), directing that the contractual service rendered by the petitioner be treated as regularized, but yet he has not been granting pension under Old Pension Scheme. Though as per averments contained in the petition, petitioner has already completed more than 13 and a half years service, but he is not being paid pension under Old Pension Scheme. 6. Though before approaching this Court in the instant proceedings, petitioner filed representation to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, but since no heed was paid to him, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation in a time bound manner. 7. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from today. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order taking note of fact that pursuant to 3 judgment dated 07.01.2025, Government has already issued direction to count the service rendered by the petitioner on ad hoc basis for the purpose of regularization. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. June 02, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4