IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9752 of 2025 Decided on: 18th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vidya Prakash …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i. That the respondents may be ordered to treat entire service of the petitioner as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits w.e.f. 24.03.2003, the date on which work charge status was 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 offered to the petitioner, with benefits incidental thereof, from the due date and pension and other retiral benefits may be ordered to be paid to the petitioner, after taking into account work charge service of the petitioner, with all consequential benefits.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this writ petition has already been considered and decided in several authoritative pronouncements of this Court, which have been summed up in Mohinder Singh Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Based upon the aforesaid decision, the petitioner is entitled for counting of his work charge service as qualifying service for the purpose of grant of pension and pensionary benefits. It appears from the case file that the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for the redressal of his grievances within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is preferred within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with 2 CWP No.2458/2024, decided on 21.03.2025 3 law and keeping in view the aforesaid judgment in Mohinder Singh2, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed 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 June 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh