IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.130 of 2023 Decided on: 3rd March, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Jagesar Ram ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh K. Dogra, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. T.R.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Mr. D. S. Kainthala, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 and 7. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No. 2524 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. CWP No. 130 of 2023 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - parties, matter is heard at this stage. 3(i). Petitioner instituted CWP No. 3311 of 2021, essentially seeking a direction to the respondents that services rendered by him in the Forest Corporation, followed by his appointment as Forest Guard in the Forest Department be counted for all intents and purposes in continuity by including him under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 instead of Contributory Pension Scheme, dated 17.08.2006 made applicable w.e.f. 15.05.2003. Certain other ancillary reliefs were also prayed for. The relief was claimed on the strength of Balwant Singh & Ors Vs. State of H.P & Ors2. 3(ii). The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of on 17.10.2022 with direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Balwant Singh & others2 within four weeks. 3(iii). Respondents vide order dated 03.12.2022 (Annexure P-6), observed that since the decision in Balwant Singh & others2 case had not been implemented as the same had been challenged in LPA No.57 of 2017, therefore, responders were not in position to decide petitioner’s case till 2 CWP No. 9214 of 2012 decided on 08.05.2015 - 3 - the final decision of LPA No. 57 of 2017. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 03.12.2022 passed by the respondents. 4. Respondents have taken the same line in their reply that the issue raised by the petitioner is pending consideration in LPA No.57 of 2017 and during pendency of LPA No. 57 of 2017, petitioner’s case cannot be decided. 5. Alongwith CMP No. 2524 of 2025, petitioner has placed on record a copy of decision rendered in State of HP & Ors Vs. Balwant Singh & Ors3, whereby LPA No. 57 of 2017 was dismissed. Respondents’ only defence for not considering the case of the petitioner and granting him the relief in terms of the decision rendered in Balwant Singh & others2 case was pendency of LPA No.57 of 2017, therefore, dismissal of LPA on 29.10.2024 removes all hindrances allegedly faced by the respondents in deciding the case of the petitioner in light of aforementioned judgments. Hence, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in light of the judgment in 3 LPA No. 57 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matters on 29.10.2024 - 4 - Balwant Singh & others2 case within a period two weeks from today. The order so passed be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge March 3, 2025 R.Atal