1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6462 of 2025 Date of decision: 23.05.2025 Champa Devi. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Dr. Nidhi Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4-State. : Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tara Chand Chauhan, Advocate, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and respondent No.5, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “i. Issue a writ of Certiorari, Madamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, by directing the respondents department to grant/Release the pension in favour of the petitioner w.e.f 1.08.2024 in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4792/2022 -2- Title Balo Devi Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, along with 12% interest for delayed payment with in time bound manner. ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus Or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondent department to pay/award Cost in favour of the Petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the « Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.30326/2023 title The Special Land Acquisition Officer Versus Vithal Rao as well as in SLP (Civil) No.3398/2024 titled State of Rajsthan & Ors Versus Gopal Bijawat, for dragging the petitioner (Class- IV Employee/leady)for dragging the Petitioner into the un-necessary litigation contrary to the litigation policy framed by the respondents department.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has represented to the respondents on 27.12.2024 (Annexure P-6), however, the competent authority has till date not taken any call on the aforesaid representation. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition -3- is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law 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 23rd May, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)