1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9196 of 2025 Date of decision: 03.06.2025 Sarwan Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents have already granted him benefit of decision rendered in Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1 under order dated 08.01.2024. He further submits that petitioner is entitled to the benefit of decision rendered in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & 1HLJ 2022 (HP)(1)151 -2- Ors.2 and Balo Devi & Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3. It is submitted that in case such benefit is granted to the petitioner, he will become eligible for pension. However, it appears from the record that the petitioner has not even preferred any representation in this regard. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case he is permitted to prefer a representation for redressal of his surviving grievances with regard to claiming pension to respondent No.2/Competent Authority, whereafter, the Competent Authority may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a time-bound schedule. This is not objected to by learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law and applicable policy within a period of six weeks from today. The 2Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018. 3Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022. -3- decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 3rd June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)