IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12236 of 2025 Decided on: 29th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Partap Chand …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, 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. Petitioner seeks pension and arrears thereof alongwith other admissible retiral benefits. The same have been denied to him by the respondents at present. Relief has been claimed on the strength of the decisions rendered 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 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. Learned vice counsel appearing 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 vice 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 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. 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 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 29, 2025 Judge Mukesh