IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8436/2025 Decided on: 22.05.2025 Ram Asra …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Dhiraj Thakur and Ms. Priyanka Chandel, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, respectively. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner feels aggrieved against respondents’ in action in not conforming the work charge status upon him from due date & also not giving consequential benefits for counting his such service 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 towards pension and pensionary benefits. With that prayer, he has preferred this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:- “ i. That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the work charge status/regularization to petitioner immediately on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service with 240 days in each calender year with effect from due date i.e. 01.01.2003, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, pay arrears, increments, seniority, pension etc. and other benefits as has been granted to other incumbents. ii. That writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued, directing the respondents to consider the age of retirement of the petitioner as 60 years instead of 58 years being a class IV employee and to count the services rendered by the petitioner i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2003 to 31.08.2015, for the purpose of qualifying service for the grant of pension and for computing other retiral benefits, as per the settled position of law.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a representation dated 27.04.2025 (Annexure P-12) to respondent No.3/competent authority has been made in that regard. Petitioner’s grievance is that the said representation till date has not been decided. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, respondent No.3/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Assistant Advocate General. 3 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.3/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 22nd May 2025(rohit)