IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1760/2025 Decided on: 12.03.2025 Biri Singh …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Parkash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Petitioner’s case is that he was engaged as daily wage beldar in Irrigation and Public Health Division Baggi, District Mandi, H.P. in the year 1995. His services were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.2003. He retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 31.05.2016. Petitioner’s grievance is that he was wrongly retired by the respondents at the age of 58 years. Being a Class-IV employee, he was entitled to continue in service upto the age 60 years. This claim has been made on the strength of judgment 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 rendered in Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others.3 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the petitioner is granted the benefits of two years of service in terms of the decisions rendered in the aforesaid cases, he would be fulfilling the criteria of requisite qualifying service for the purpose of pension, which presently has been denied to him. Though the law has been laid down in Baldev’s2 and Satya Devi’s cases, but the facts of the case are required to be examined by the respondent/competent authority. It appears from the record that the petitioner has not preferred any representation to the respondents, therefore, in the interest of justice, this petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to represent to the respondents/competent authority within two weeks from today, whereafter his case for redressal of grievances raised in this writ petition as well as in the representation to be preferred by the petitioner, shall be examined by the respondents/competent authority within six weeks, in accordance with law. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. 2CWP No.2711/2017 decided on 22.02.2022 3CWP No. 2274 of 2021 and connected matters. decided on 28.05.2024 3 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 12th March, 2025(rohit)