IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Ex. Pet. No. 2564/2025 Decided on: 16.09.2026 Narayan Dutt …Petitioner Versus State of H.P & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Parkash, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Kamlesh Shandil, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Following order was passed in the matter on 21.08.2026, noticing the grievance of the petitioner: - “Respondents No. 1 to 4 filed reply inter alia pleadings therein that late Shri Narayan Dutt had to his credit 07 years and 08 months of regular service. Addition of daily wage service in accordance with law laid down in Sunder Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Civil Appeal No. 6309/2017, decided on 08.03.2018) would make his total service at 09 years and 08 months. According to the respondents, such service is less then 09 years and 09 months as required under the rules and therefore, petitioner is not entitled to pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner justifiably raises the grievance that in terms of Sunder Singh pension would be admissible in case of more than 08 years of service. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Learned Additional Advocate General seeks two weeks further time to place on record fresh instructions/ file reply. List on 16.09.2026.” Pursuant to the above, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record office instructions dated 15.09.2026 from the Executive Engineer, Shillai (B&R) Division, HPPWD, Shillai, conveying that a fresh consideration order has been passed in the case of the petitioner on 11.09.2026. The said consideration order has also been appended with the office instructions. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh consideration order dated 11.09.2026 has redressed the grievance of the petitioner, however, the respondents be directed to release the benefits flowing to the petitioner under the said consideration order within a time-bound schedule. In view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to do the needful by releasing the benefits flowing to the petitioner under the aforesaid consideration order within a period of four weeks. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy for redressal of any surviving grievance, if any, in accordance with law. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 16th September, 2026(rohit)