IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3434 of 2025 Decided on: 12th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Viasan 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. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 7- State. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.8. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 7 and respondent No.8, respectively. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. The case projected by the petitioner is that her services were converted as whole-time contingent paid 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 worker on 11.04.2005. She joined as such on 21.04.2005. Services of the petitioner were regularized on 01.09.2007. She accordingly joined on regular basis on 03.09.2007. The respondents retired her on 29.04.2017, i.e. on her attaining the age of 58 years. Petitioner’s case is that she was entitled to continue in service for two more years, i.e. upto 60 years or in other words, till 30.04.2019, in view of the law laid down in Baldev Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2. Petitioner’s grievance is that she has been denied pension by the respondents. In case the respondents grant her due benefit of the law laid down in Baldev’s2 case, she would complete the qualifying service criteria required for the purpose of pension. 4. Though the law is well settled, however, the factual aspects of the case are to be examined by the respondents. It appears that the petitioner has not preferred any proper representation in that regard to the respondents. 5. Looking to the grievance of the petitioner and the settled legal position, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the respondents/competent authority 2 CWP No.2711 of 2017, decided alongwith connected matter on 22.02.2022 3 within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is received by the respondents/competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Baldev2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 12, 2025 Judge Mukesh