IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.9709 of 2026 Decided on 24th June, 2026 Sh. Kirpa Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Devender Kumar Sharma. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents NO.1 to 4. Mr. T.C. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. T.C. Chauhan, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and respondent No.5, respectively. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is partly satisfied with the office order that has now been passed by the Authority, but, his remaining grievance is that the benefit of the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner, which has to be taken into consideration in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi’s case has not been considered by the Authority. 3. This Court is of the considered view that for the said purpose, it would be in the interest of justice, in case, the petitioner approaches the Authority afresh and in the event of any fresh representation being filed by the petitioner within two weeks qua the consideration of the daily wage service rendered by the petitioner alongwith regular service rendered by him being counted for the purpose of pension, in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sunder Singh and Balo Devi’s case, then, appropriate decision be taken upon the representation of the petitioner within six weeks as from the date of the receipt thereof. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 24, 2026 (Vinod)