IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16510/2025 Decided on: 10.11.2025 Savitri Devi …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Shivani Priya, Advocate, vice Mr. Jagan Nath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1,2 and 3, respectively. 2. Considering the order impugned in this petition, fact as come on record and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply of this petition is not required to be called from the respondents. The matter has been heard accordingly. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 3. Respondent No.2-Director-cum-Warden of Fisheries Himachal Pradesh under impugned order dated 30.07.2025 has declined to accede to petitioner’s representation seeking pension on the analogy of Sunder Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others3. Request has been declined on the ground that the petitioner does not have to her credit 10 years of qualifying service required under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 4. The impugned order itself records that the petitioner has to her credit 8 years, 5 months and 19 days of regular service rendered w.e.f. 06.07.2016 up-to her superannuation on 31.10.2024. The impugned order, however, has failed to acknowledge the daily waged service rendered by the petitioner w.e.f. 24.03.2008 till regularization of her services on 06.07.2016. Prima-facie, it appears that in case, this period is taken into consideration and computed in accordance with law laid down in Sunder Singh2 & Balo Devi3, the petitioner would become eligible for grant of pension, however, this aspect is required to be re-examined by respondent No.2. Accordingly, impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh, strictly in consonance with 2Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022 3 Sunder Singh2 & Balo Devi3. This exercise be now completed within a period of three weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is held entitled for pensionary benefits, the same be released in her favour within further period of three weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th November, 2025(rohit)