1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.275 of 2026 Date of Decision : 25.06.2026 State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Appellants Versus Kaka Ram and another …… Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : None for respondent No.1. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.2. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (oral) Challenge, in the present appeal is to the consideration order, passed by the learned Single Judge, in CWP No.16892 of 2025 titled Kaka Ram vs. State of H.P. and others dated 30.10.2025, filed by the employee. 2. The only prayer which the employee had made in the writ petition, as such, was for consideration of his case for processing the same for the purpose of pension on the basis of judgment passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. dated 08.03.2018, apart from the other judgments in questions on the said issue, as apparently the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 petitioner had retired from the service on 31.05.2017 and had been earlier engaged as a Daily Wage Mason in the year, 2001 and his services were regularized in 2009. Thus, having only eight years service, pension was denied to him on the ground that quantifying service of ten years was not there in the credit of the employee. 3. In was in such circumstances, the writ petition had been filed in the year, 2025 and in the impugned judgment only consideration of his representation had been directed. 4. Thus, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Sunder Singh (supra); Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 titled Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 18.07.2022; and LPA No.196 of 2022 titled Roop Lal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 11.10.2023, it is open to the State to consider the case of the petitioner, in accordance with the settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, and pass an order as no definite right has been given to the employee by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the order is innocuous and cannot, as such, be challenged. 5. In view the above circumstances, we dismiss the present appeal, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. ( G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice ( Bipin Chander Negi) June 25, 2026 (KS) Judge