IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.13917 of 2025 Date of Decision: 01.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sh. Krishan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Bonit Prakash and Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of order dated 01.02.2021, whereby representation, having been filed by the petitioner, came to be rejected on the ground that judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi’s case does not apply to Class-III employee, rather, same is applicable in the case of Class-IV employees. 2. Since this Court in LPA No.196 of 2022, titled as Roop Lal Vs. State of H.P. and Others, has already held that direction contained in Sunder Singh’s and Balo Devi’s cases are applicable to Class-III employee also, learned counsel representing the petitioner states that he would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner afresh, in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Roop Lal (supra). 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. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Since it is apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner, which are duly supported by way of affidavit, that petitioner possesses requisite qualification for being granted the benefit of pension, coupled with the fact that Division Bench of this Court in Roop Lal (supra) has already held that Class-III employee shall also be entitled to the benefit of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi and Sunder Singh cases, there appears to be no impediment inasmuch as issuing directions, as prayed for at the behest of petitioner. 5. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 01.02.2021 is quashed and set aside with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh, in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court as well as observations made hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks. Needless to 3 say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 01, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)