2025:HHC:28546 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10397 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mohinder Singh Kashyap and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2/State. Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That the Respondents no.2 and 3 may kindly be directed to send the service book of the petitioners no. 1,2 and 3 to respondent no.4 for fixation of the pension/issuance of the PPO NO in favour fo the petitioners under rule 37-A of the CCS pension rule In time bound manner. ii) That respondent no. 4 may kindly be directed to finalize the case of the petitioner No.4 for revision of the pension in time bound manner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:28546 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Rajesh Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that case with regard to pension of the petitioner is pending consideration with the office of respondent No.4, but the same is not being decided despite repeated requests. 3. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No.4 has filed reply, perusal whereof reveals that case of the petitioners for revised pension was returned to the Department concerned vide letter dated 04.06.2025 (Annexure R-1) with remarks that there is no record of petitioners available in the office of Accountant General. While issuing aforesaid communication, office of Accountant General specifically called upon the office of respondent-department that Pension Payment Order, if any, has been allotted in favour of petitioners, same may be made available to it, enabling it to do the needful within the stipulated time. 4. Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, learned counsel representing the respondents No.3, states that he does not intend to file any reply to the present petition, but requisite information, as called for, if not already supplied, shall be supplied expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. 5. Consequently, in view of aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned counsel representing the respondents No.3 & 4, this Court 2025:HHC:28546 3 deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondent No.3 to ensure that entire service recordof the petitioners is made available to respondent No.4 within a period of ten days, enabling it to issue revised PPO expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of service record, as detailed hereinabove, from the office of respondent No.3. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)