IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9984 of 2025 Decided on: 21.06.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Chander Shekhar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vipul Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Surinder Prakash Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:- “i That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to count the services 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - rendered by the petitioner on contract basis towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and for annual increments, as has been held by this Hon'ble Court vide its judgment dated 10.01.2020 passed in CWP No. 2411 of 2019, titled as Jagdish Chand & others v/s State of H.P. & others alongwith connected matters (Annexure P-1).” 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is under instructions to confine the relief prayed for in this writ petition only for grant of pension after taking into consideration the contractual services rendered by the petitioner prior to his regularization; Other reliefs prayed in this writ petition be treated as given up. This petition is accordingly considered and treated to have been filed for grant of pension by counting the services rendered by the petitioner on contractual basis followed by his regularization as qualifying service of for pensionary benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner for grant of pensionary benefits is squarely covered by the decisions in State of Himachal - 3 - Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Sheela Devi2 and Jagdish Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would be content if the case of the petitioner is considered by the respondents/competent authority in light of the aforesaid decisions. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to above submissions, but without going into the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid decisions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge June 21, 2025 R.Atal 2 SLP(C) 10.399 of 2020 decided on 07.08.2023 3 CWP No. 2411 of 2019, decided alongwith connected matters on 10.01.2020