IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15240/2025 Decided on: 28.10.2025 Arun Kumar …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, 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 reliefs: - “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant service benefits as well as pension to the petitioner in terms of Rule 38 of Invalidation Pension and Rule 10 of CCS (EOP) Rules, 2023 by taking into consideration 100% disability element of the petitioner as well as judgment dated 23.04.2025 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 titled Bijender Singh vs. Union of India (Annexure P-4), but the respondent department has taken into consideration only 50% disability element, whereas the disability of the petitioner is 85%. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay the attendant charges to the petitioner, since he has suffering from 85% disability during his period.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered under the decision rendered in Bijender Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner though had represented to the respondents/competent authority on 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-3), however, the said representation has not been decided till date. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, he is permitted to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority, whereafter, the said respondents/competent authority be directed to decide the representation, to be made by him, in accordance with law and in terms of above decision, within time bound schedule. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has no objection to this prayer. 5. In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today for the redressal of his grievances, who shall in turn, consider 2 Civil Appeal Nos. 4458-4459 of 2024 decided on 23.04.2025 3 and decide the same, in accordance with law and in terms of above decision, within a further period of eight weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th October, 2025(rohit)