IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.19327 of 2025 Date of Decision: 16.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sh. Padam Dev & Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners: Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioners, who are legal heirs of deceased employee Mr. Kaul Ram, who prior to his death, had been working as Forest Worker in the Forest Department, have prayed for the following main reliefs:- “a. The the present petition may kindly be allowed and order passed vide Annexure P-12 (colly) and Annexure P-14 may kindly be quashed and set aside being contrary to law and facts. b. That the respondents may kindly be directed to condone the shortage of few days in the service of the father of the petitioners due to artificial and fictional breaks in the years 1993 to 1996 for the purpose of continuity in service. 2 c. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the work charge status or regularization to the father of the petitioners after completion of 8 years’ service on daily wage basis with all consequential benefits such as; seniority, pay fixation, arrears of pay, Gratuity and pensionary benefit etc. in the interest of justice. d. That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents that father of petitioners may kindly be deemed to be continued in service till the attainment of age of 60 years, with all consequential benefits such as seniority, pension, gratuity and arrears of pay for the period of two years, with up to date interest in view of the direction issued in Baldev case (Annexure P-9) and further clarified by the Govt. instruction dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure P-10). e. That respondents may be directed to consider the case of the father of the petitioners in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balo Devi case (Annexure P-11) and pension may kindly be granted to the father of the petitioners as the father of petitioners had completed his qualifying service as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and same may be released in favour of the petitioners with effect from due date along with arrear and interest. f. That the directions may kindly be given to the respondents to calculate all the retiral benefits including gratuity and pay the arrears with interest @ 9% per annum.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned vice counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case their representation is considered and decided in the light of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 titled Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal 3 Pradesh & Ors. and CWP No.2711 of 2017, titled Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 2. Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners (Annexure P-13), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today in light of Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and Baldev (supra). Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 16, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge