IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4578 of 2025 Decided on: 14th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar & Ors …..Petitioners Versus State of HP & Ors …..Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. R.L.Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 and respondent No.6, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - following substantive reliefs: - i). That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 02.09.2024 (Annexure P-6) since the same is contrary to the law laid down by this Hon'ble Court Vide judgment dated 22.08.2029 passed in CWP No. 654/2024 titled as Asha Sharma and others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P- 14). ii. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to grant pension to the petitioners from the due date(s) with. all consequential benefits by counting their contractual services for the purpose of pensionary benefits in light of the judgment dated 22.08.202 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWP No. 654/2024 titled as Asha Sharma and others v/s State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Annexure P-14). ” 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is under instructions to give up prayer No.(i) as the petitioners have inadvertently sought quashing of Annexure P-6, which sanctions pension in favour of petitioner No.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners be permitted to urge only prayer No.(ii) in this petition. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners have been noted. Accordingly, this writ petition is treated to - 3 - have been filed only for relief No.(ii). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that relief No.(ii) prayed for by the petitioners has already been adjudicated upon in Asha Sharma and others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. The aforesaid decision is in turn based on the decision rendered in Oma Wati and another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. 4. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation(s) to the competent authority for the redressal of grievances raised in the writ petition. 5. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case such a representation(s) is/are 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 petitioners. 2 CWP No.645 of 2024, decided on 22.08.2024 3 CWPOA No. 5507 of 2020, decided on 21.08.2023 - 4 - The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 14, 2025 R.Atal