IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17124 of 2025 Decided on: 06.11.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paras Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Bonit Prakash, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.T.R.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. T.R.Sharma, learned counsel, appears and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. In view of the order impugned in this writ petition, the grievances of the petitioner and the nature order being passed hereinafter, reply of the writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. With the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Paras Ram Vs. State of H.P. and Others2 was instituted by the petitioner, seeking applicability of Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 and Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4. The writ petition as disposed of with direction to respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner- cum-Collector Mandi, H.P. to decide petitioner’s case in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 passed the order on 21.08.2025, rejecting petitioner’s representation on the ground that petitioner has to his credit only 9 years and 3 months of regular service post regularization, which falls short of 10 years of qualifying service, required under Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. 3. Respondent No.2 in the impugned order has also noticed that apart from regular service, petitioner was also in possession of approximately 8 years’ of daily wage service. This service is also required to be computed by respondent No.2 in accordance with law laid down in 2 CWP No. 10127 of 2025, decided on 25.06.2025 3 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 4 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 3 Sunder Singh3 and Balo Devi4,,which exercise apparently has not been carried out. Prima-facie, it appears that, in case this exercise is carried out, petitioner would be entitled to pension. However, this aspect was required to be examined by respondent No.2. 4. In view of above, impugned order dated 21.08.2025, which has not taken cognizance of the daily waged service rendered by the petitioner in light of law laid down in Sunder Singh3 and Balo Devi4, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, inter-alia, keeping in view the observations made above within a period of four weeks from today. The pension, if any, found admissible to the petitioner, be also released in his favour within the aforesaid period The decision so arrived at, be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 6, 2025 Judge R.Atal