1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9944 of 2023 Date of decision: 26.06.2025 Karam Dass. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar and Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocates. For the respondents : Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I. to consider the petitioner for appointment on work-charge status w.e.f. the date after completion of 8 years of daily wager service in the interest of justice in compliance of law laid down by this Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated above; II. respondents may kindly be directed to Count/consider the period spent by the petitioner in service as daily wager, work-charge service and regular service for grant of superannuation pension in favour of petitioner and other retirement benefits. III. to calculate the pension payable to the petitioner including the DCRG, Leave Encashment, GPF in the scales of pay and allowances admissible from time to time to the officials like the petitioner holding the post of Mason Gr.I. IV. to direct the respondent to disburse the amount payable to the petitioner with interest @ 18% PA from the date of retirement till actual payment along with suitable amount of compensation to compensate the petitioner for his harassment at the hands of respondents during all the above years. -2- V. That the Annexure P3 i.e. rejection order on representation may kindly be quashed and set aside.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was initially appointed as Mason (Class-III) on daily-wage basis on 20.06.1992 in the respondent-Public Works Department. His services were brought on work- charge establishment on 01.01.2003 and regularized on 01.01.2007. Petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s main grievance is in respect of respondent’s denying him pension. He further submits that petitioner would be satisfied, in case he is permitted to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law at an appropriate stage in respect of relief claimed in the instant petition, however, the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of pension in light of Roop Lal vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1 affirmed in SLP(C) No.1007 of 2024 decided on 18.03.2025. Such recourse is not objected to by learned Deputy Advocate General. 3. In view of above, without examining the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner and defense of the 1 LPA No.196 of 2022 decided on 11.10.2023. -3- respondents in their reply and also notwithstanding the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 (Annexure P-3), this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/Competent Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for his eligibility for pension in terms of decision rendered in Roop Lal1. This exercise be undertaken within six weeks from today in accordance with law. The decision so arrived at, shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of his surviving grievances in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 26th June, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)