IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1850 of 2025 Decided on: 19th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunil Dutt …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Karam Pal, Advocate vice Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i) That any appropriate writ/order or direction in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondents may be directed to grant pension to the petitioner from the due date along with all benefits incidental thereof in terms of Judgment in Balo Devi 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 case and the benefits of retirement age from 58 to 60 in term of Judgment passed in CWP No.2711 of 2017, Baldev Vs. State of H.P.” 4. It appears that the petitioner has preferred a representation to the respondents on 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) for redressal of his grievance. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this writ petition has already been adjudicated upon in Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 and Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. Petitioner’s grievance is that his aforesaid representation has not been considered and decided by the respondents till date. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 25.11.2024 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the cases of Balo Devi2 and Baldev3 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 3 CWP No.2711 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 22.02.2022 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 19, 2025 Judge Mukesh