IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5680/2025 Decided on: 21.05.2025 Desh Raj …Petitioner Versus Government of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. B.R. Dhiman, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate Genral with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is that since he has 9 years 4 months and 17 days of regular service to his credit, which falls short of required 10 years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 respondents have not released him pension, hence, he moved this writ petition seeking following substantive relief:- “to issue necessary directions to the authorities concerned to consider and sanction of pensionary benefits in the light of Judgment Delivered by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Sant Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Others delivered in CWP No. 8252/2022 judgment dated 27.12.2022 and HP Finance Department Notification No. FIN (Pen) A(3)-10/2026 dated 14th Feb, 2019.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case, the petitioner is granted the benefit of decision in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3, he would be in a position to earn pension as in that situation he would satisfy the condition of requisite service required for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case a direction is issued to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition in light of the aforesaid judgments within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 2Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 decided on 8th March, 2018 3Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022 3 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition, in accordance with law and taking into consideration the above judgments in the cases of Sunder Singh2 and Balo Devi3, 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 Judge 21st May 2025(rohit)