IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16677 of 2024 Decided on: 13th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Veena Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. 2. Petitioner is serving as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) in the respondent-Education Department. Her case is that she had opted for New Pension Scheme in May, 2023 as at that time, no choice 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 was given to her to opt for the Old Pension Scheme. Pursuant to the decision rendered in State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. Versus Sheela Devi2, the Finance Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh has permitted exercise of option for converting to Old Pension Scheme. Petitioner is desirous of opting for the Old Pension Scheme. As per the case projected by the petitioner, she is still continuing on the rolls of the Education Department. She has not received any benefit under the New Pension Scheme and is willing to opt for the Old Pension Scheme by withdrawing her earlier option for New Pension Scheme. Petitioner’s grievance is that her representation in this regard furnished to respondent No.2 on 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-6) has not been considered and decided by the competent authority till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ 2 SLP (Civil) No.10399/2020, decided on 07.08.2023 3 petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 14.06.2024 (Annexure P-6) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in Sheela Devi2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at 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 March 13, 2025 Judge Mukesh