IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4016 of 2025 Decided on: 6th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shakuntla Devi …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Following order passed in this matter on 21.03.2025 notices the gist of petitioner’s case and her grievance:- “Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, learned counsel, accept service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. Petitioner retired as Class-IV employee. Respondents have denied pension to the petitioner under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, on the ground that her total service period comes to nine years and twenty-five 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 days. (w.e.f. 09.05.2013 to 31.05.2022) i.e. less than the prescribed minimum qualifying service of ten years. 3. Petitioner contents that daily wage service rendered by her w.e.f. 17.02.2009 till May 2013, is also liable to be computed in accordance with law laid down in Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 (Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, decided on 18.06.2022 and Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 (Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.), decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 18.06.2022 and 08.03.2018, respectively, and if that is done, she would be in possession of minimum qualifying service of ten years. Let learned Additional Advocate General to have instruction in the matter. List during the course of next week.” 2. Pursuant to above, the respondents placed on record instructions, which were noticed in the order dated 27.03.2025 as under:- “Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record instructions dated 27.03.2025. As per these instructions, petitioner had rendered only four years and three months of daily wage service i.e. less than five years and, therefore, service rendered by her on daily wage basis cannot be considered to be equivalent to one year service in light of judgments in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 (Balo Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, decided on 18.06.2022 and Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 (Sunder Singh Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.). At the request of learned vice counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.” 3. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition after incorporating some additional pleadings and reliefs, which are stated to be available to the petitioner. 3 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 06, 2025 Judge Mukesh