IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8711 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Govind ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Bhupinder Thakur and Mr. Skandh Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his case in terms of judgment dated 18.7.2022, rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18830/2021), titled as “Balo Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors” in a time bound manner, whereby it has been held that class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have completed the total eligible service for more than ten years. Daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service - 2 - for pension. If on that basis their services are more than eight years, but less than ten years, their service will be reckoned as ten years. 2. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as other documents adduced on record, this Court finds that issue otherwise sought to be raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. Otherwise also, having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, who fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner to consider his case in light of Balo Devi (supra), shall be decided in accordance with law. 4. 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 direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation (Annexure P-3) having been filed by the petitioner, , expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the - 3 - petitioner and pass a speaking order. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate court of law if he still remains aggrieved. All pending applications stand disposed of. May 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge