IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP Nos.946 & 1090 of 2025 Decided on: 24th February, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 946 of 2025 Ratti Ram & Ors ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ 2. CWP No. 1090 of 2025 Mohar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Suresh Saini, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 2. These writ petitions have been filed for grant of following almost identical prayers, which have been extracted from CWP No. 946 of 2025:- “(i That the respondents may be directed to order conversion of part time services into daily paid services/whole time services and from daily paid services/whole time services to regular services from due dates in view of the settled law (Annexure P-1). ii) That the respondents may be directed to grant benefit of pension to the petitioner in view of the settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Raj Upadhyaya's case taking into consideration the length of regular service as mentioned in para No.9 of the petition. iii) That the respondents may be directed to grant arrears of pension from due date together with all retirement and consequential benefits to the petitioners.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioners have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation(s) to the competent authority for the redressal of their grievances raised in the writ petitions. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be preferring representation(s) within two weeks from today. In case such a - 3 - representation (s) is/are so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge February 24 2025 R.Atal