IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10922 of 2025 Decided on: 9th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Girdhari Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, 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. According to the petitioner, he has completed eight years of daily wage service as Beldar on 31.12.2006. His services were brought on work charge/regularized on 22.01.2008. Petitioner superannuated on 31.03.2017. Petitioner’s grievance pertains to not being considered for 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 grant of pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and also against the respondents’ inaction in not extending him the benefit of decision rendered in Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation to the respondents on 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-6) for claiming the above reliefs. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/ competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 31.05.2025 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Baldev2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2 CWP No.2711 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 22.02.2022 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh