IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11572 of 2025 Decided on: 21st July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajesh Kosh, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. Petitioner’s case is that before his superannuation as Class-IV employee on 31.05.2021, he 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 had rendered 09 years, 08 months & 23 days of regular service and 08 years of daily wage service. That he is entitled to the benefit of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3, however, the benefit of aforesaid decisions has not been given to him by the respondents till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider his case for grant of benefits claimed by him in light of the aforesaid decisions. 4. It is seen from the record 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. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation to the respondents/competent authority within two weeks from today. In case such a representation 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 3 is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law 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 July 21, 2025 Judge Mukesh