IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8138 of 2025 and connected matters Decided on: 20th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 8138 of 2025 Narayan Dutt …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents. ______________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 8140 of 2025 Shiv Dass …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents. ______________________________________________________ 3. CWP No. 8150 of 2025 Prem Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents-State in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - all the petitions. Mr. T.R.Sharma, Advocate for the Accountant General, in all the petitions. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. T.R.Sharma, learned Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respective respondents in all the petitions. 2. Petitioners retired as Class III employees. They have been denied pension for not satisfying the conditions of minimum required length of service. Petitioners seek counting of their daily wage service towards qualifying service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. The claim has been made on the strength of decision rendered in In Roop Lal Versus State of H.P. & Others2. SLP (C) No. 1007/2024 instituted by the State against the aforesaid decision has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.03.2025. 2. Case files show that the petitioners have not 2 LPA No.196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 - 3 - preferred any representation(s) for the redressal of their grievances. Hence, these writ petitions are disposed of by permitted the petitioners to prefer representation(s) within two weeks, which shall be decided by the respondents/competent authority in accordance with law, keeping in vide decision rendered in Roop Lal2 within six weeks from the date of receipt of the same. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 20, 2025 R.Atal