1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4944 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.05.2025 Bhagirath. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1 to 3-State. : Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage 2. Petitioner was engaged as daily wage Beldar by respondent-Jal Shakti Vibhag in the year 2001. His services were regularized on 04.05.2011. Petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2018 at the age of 58 years. -2- 3. Petitioner preferred CWP No.7093 of 2023 seeking the benefit of decision rendered in Baldev Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1. Petitioner’s writ petition was disposed of on 29.03.2023 with direction to the respondents to consider his case in light of decision rendered in Baldev1. Respondents considered the case of the petitioner and vide office order dated 29.04.2024 extended the benefit of Baldev1 in his favour. Petitioner was deemed to have notionally retired from Government service on 31.01.2020. The total regular service rendered by the petitioner, including till the date of his deemed retirement from Government service, falls short of qualifying service required for the purpose of pension, hence he has preferred this writ petition seeking the applicability of decision in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2. 4. As per facts pleaded in the petition, the petitioner has rendered daily-wage service w.e.f. year 2001 till 04.05.2011. If that is the position, petitioner would be entitled to benefit flowing from decision in Sunder Singh2. This, however, is an aspect which is required to be examined 1HLJ 2022 (HP)(1)151 2Civil Appeal No. 6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018. -3- and verified by the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his eligibility for the purpose of pension in light of decision rendered in Sunder Singh2 within a period of six weeks from today. Consequential action based upon the decision be also taken within the aforesaid period. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 19th May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)