IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7395 of 2024 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Sher Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C. Verma and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): CMP No.11320 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and with the consent of parties, case at hand is taken up for hearing today itself. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.7395 of 2024 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “I. That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner toward qualifying service for pension with further direction to pay the pension to the petitioner form the date of retirement alongwith arrear and interest as per the judgment rendered y Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh’s case and Balo Devi’s case” 3. Though by way of reply to the petition, claim, as put forth by the petitioner, has been refuted by the respondents, but before case at 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, learned counsel representing the petitioner while referring to the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 08.03.2018 and Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, titled as Balo Devi Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 18.07.2022, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore cases. He states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments, in a time bound manner. 4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by way of affidavit, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, learned counsel representing the petitioner that the issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi case (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties, in case, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is accepted. 3 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgments, as detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 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 detailed speaking order taking note of judgments, as detailed hereinabove. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge May 26, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)