IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16040 of 2026 Decided on: 16th September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tej Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Verma and Mr. D. Bhatt, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Aman Thakur, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 and respondent No.6, respectively. 2. Respondent No.6 has turned down the pension case of the petitioner on the ground that his total qualifying service is 09 years, 05 months and 23 days as against the 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 required 10 years of service. Petitioner had superannuated on 31.03.2020 at the age of 60 years as a Class-IV employee. In this writ petition, he seeks applicability of Kuldeep Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 for counting the service rendered by him as Part- Time Water Carrier before regularization of his services. Petitioner has not preferred any representation in that regard to the respondents for examining his case in light of Kuldeep Singh2. 3. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to prefer a representation to respondent No.3/competent authority for the redressal of grievances raised in this writ petition within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be considered and decided by respondent No.3/competent authority in accordance with law keeping in view the decision in Kuldeep Singh2, within a period of six weeks thereafter. Depending upon the decision so taken, petitioner’s case shall be processed again for grant of pension by the respondents-State as also by respondent No.6, in case he is held eligible for pension. The 2 CWP No.9484 of 2024, decided on 10.03.2026 3 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 September 16, 2026 Judge Mukesh