IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1758/2025 Decided on: 12.03.2025 Prem Chand …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, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, respectively. 2. Petitioner’s case is that he was retired by the respondents from service on 31.03.2016 at the age of 58 years, whereas he while serving in the capacity of Class-IV employee, was entitled to serve till the age of 60 years i.e. upto 31.03.2018. Petitioner further claims the benefit of decisions rendered in Sunder 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Singh Vs. State of H.P.2, Satya Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others. 3 and Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,4 for counting his daily wage service as per the mechanism prescribed therein towards his total service to be reckoned for the purpose of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the aforesaid is carried out and the needful is done by the respondents, the petitioner would be entitled for pension as in that situation, the petitioner would be having more than qualifying service required for the purpose of pension. Though the law has been laid down in Sunder Singh’s2, Satya Devi’s3 and Baldev’s4 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 2Civil Appeal No.6309/2017 decided on 08.10.2018 3CWP No. 2274 of 2021 and connected matters. decided on 28.05.2024 4CWP No.2711/2017 decided on 22.02.2022 3 also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 12th March, 2025(rohit)