IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9541 of 2023 Date of Decision: 28.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajinder Prasad …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ (i) That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled for grant of work charge status w.e.f. due date in terms of the judgment passed in CWP No. 2735 of 2010, titled Rakesh Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others at Annexure P-2 judgment at Annexure P-3 & P-4 respectively with all consequential benefits; (ii) That the respondents may also be directed to extend the benefit of two years of service on account of enhanced age of retirement as 60 years for Class-IV employees in terms of the judgment passed in CWP No. 2711/2017 titled Baldev Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh decided on 22.02.2022; 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) That the petitioner may also be held entitled for grant of pension and payment of gratuity w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits and the arrears accrued be ordered to be paid with interest in the interest of justice.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled as Baldev vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and judgment dated 8.03.2018 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, titled Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgments(supra) 3 expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgments, referred hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 28,2025 (shankar)