IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3742 of 2020 Decided on: 2nd June, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Raj Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No. 12128 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No. 3742 of 2020 With consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - “i. That the fictional breaks given to the petitioner in his daily wage services rendered from December, 1998 till December, 2004 may kindly be ordered to be ignored and the break period may kindly be ordered to be counted as continuity in service for the purpose, of grant of work charge status and regularization of the services of the petitioner at the completion of 8 years of daily wager services w.e. f. December, 1998, with all consequential benefits. ii. That after counting his daily waged services followed by regularization towards qualifying service for pension, the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for grant of pension w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is under instructions not to press relief No.(i) i.e. for condoning the alleged fictional breaks in his service for the period 1988 to 2004. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is praying for conferment of work charge status after completing requisite number of daily wage service followed by regularization. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that presently the petitioner has not been granted pension on account of the fact that he did not have to his credit qualifying service of ten years as required under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1972. He further submits that petitioner had instituted CWP No. 4431 of 2025, seeking - 3 - benefit of two years’ further service in light of law laid down in Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others2; Vide judgment dated 27.03.2025, passed in the aforesaid writ petition, respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Satya Devi2; Petitioner presently has in his credit regular service of five years and two months. Two more years of regular service in lieu of law laid down in Satya Devi2 would make his total regular service as seven years and two months; The petitioner has also rendered eight years’ of daily wage service, which is required to be counted in light of law laid down in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a comprehensive representation to the respondent /Competent Authority for redressal of his grievances to enable him to earn pension, whereafter, respondent/Competent Authority be directed to consider his representation within a time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection 2 CWP No.2274 of 221, decided alongwith connected matters on 29.06.2024 3 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 4 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 - 4 - for the same. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent /Competent Authority for redressal of his aforesaid grievances. In case such a representation is made within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided by the Competent Authority, in light of aforesaid decisions, within a period of six weeks thereafter. Copy of decision so taken, be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand dispose of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 2, 2025 R.Atal