1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 778 of 2026 Decided on: 08.01.2026 Mani 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. Subhash Chander, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General and Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he fulfills the criteria for the required qualifying service for purpose of pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 but the pension has not been paid to him by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 submitted that petitioner has repeatedly preferred representations to the respondents. He represented on 07.05.2025 (Annexure P-15) followed by reminder on 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-16), however, till date, respondents have not acted upon petitioner’s representations. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that law laid down in Bimla Devi versus State of H.P.2, Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.3 as clarified in Balo Devi & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others4 also makes the petitioner eligible to pension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents are directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representations for redressal of his grievance pertaining to his eligibility for pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 within the time bound schedule. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2CWP No.6688/2021, decided on 27.06.2025. 3Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 4Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022, decided on 18.07.2022 3 respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner, in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above decisions, within a period of six weeks from today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 08, 2026 Judge yogesh