IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.14422 of 2024 Decided on: 1st January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Krishan Lal …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “I. That the respondents may kindly be directed to superannuate petitioner at the age of 60 years by adding two years in his regular service w.e.f. 31.07.2016 to 31.07.2018 and thereafter petitioner may be granted pension and pensionary benefits by 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 considering his service on regular basis w.e.f. 18.09.2007 to 31.08.2018 as qualifying period for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits. II. That the respondents may be directed to grant the benefit to the petitioner in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court in CWP No.2274 of 2021 titled as Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others. III. That the petitioner may kindly be granted all benefits w.e.f. 30.09.2007 to 31.07.2018 including all consequential benefits.” 3. Admittedly, 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. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation 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. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh