IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 15418/2026 Decided on: 14.09.2026 Salig Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. M.S Katoch, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Rajesh Kosh, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Following order was passed in the matter on 07.09.2026: - “Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajesh Kosh, learned counsel appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and 5, respectively. Petitioner's grievance is to the office order dated 27.06.2026 passed by respondent No.2- Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, HPPWD. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's case for grant of pensionary benefits was covered in light of decisions rendered in Sunder Singh, Balo Devi and Roop Lal cases. Yet, petitioner's representation has been rejected by 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 respondent No.2 under the impugned order. The impugned order acknowledges that petitioner's total service period comes to eight years and seven months of regular service. Yet, finding this period to be less than nine years and nine months, in terms of admissibility of pension under the CCS Pension Rules 1972, his case for grant of pension has been rejected. Respondent No. 2 has declined to apply the decision in Roop Lal’s case to the case of the petitioner mainly on the ground that government has decided to file a review/curative petition in the Hon’ble Apex Court in Roop Lal's case. It is well settled that a judgment continues to hold the field or continues to operate till the time the same is not stayed or reviewed in accordance with law. It was not within the domain of respondent No. 2 to have ignored the decision rendered in Roop Lal's case, LPA No. 196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023 as affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal © No. 1007 of 2024. The impugned order of rejection is absolutely unsustainable in law. Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner again in consonance with the law laid down in Sunder Singh, Balo Devi, and Roop Lal. The fresh consideration order be placed on record on the next date. List on 14.09.2026.” 2. Pursuant to above, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 11.09.2026 from the Executing Engineer, Outer Seraj Division H.P. PWD Nirmand conveying that the respondents have reconsidered petitioner’s case under a speaking order passed on 10.09.2026. Copy of the aforesaid speaking order has also been appended with the office instructions, whereunder petitioner’s claim 3 has been allowed for pension subject to the final outcome of curative petition filed in Roop Lal Vs State of H.P & Anr.2 Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that benefits flowing to the petitioner under the aforesaid office order shall be released in his favour within four weeks from today. In view of above, the present petition to stand disposed of as petitioner’s grievance raised in this writ petition has been redressed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th September, 2026(rohit) 2 LPA No. 196 of 2022, decided on 11.10.2023