IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10621 of 2024 Date of Decision: 12.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Babita Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondent-State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “That the respondents may be ordered to consider the case of the petitioner for pension and he may be ordered to be paid pension from the due date, with all benefits incidental thereof.” 2. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided by the respondents in light 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 of judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 10783 of 2024, titled Lalit Sen versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Lalit Sen case (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 12, 2025 (shankar)