IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.383 of 2026 Date of Decision: 6.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Ramesh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Tek Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his case in terms of judgment dated 18.7.2022, rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4792 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18830/2021), titled as “Balo Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors” in a time bound manner, whereby it has been held that class-IV employees will be entitled to pension if they have been duly regularized and have completed the total eligible service for more than ten years. Daily wage service of five years will be treated equal to one year of regular service - 2 - for pension. If on that basis their services are more than eight years, but less than ten years, their service will be reckoned as ten years. 2. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit as well as other documents adduced on record, this Court finds that issue otherwise sought to be raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated in the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties in case respondents are directed to consider and decide case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, is not averse to the aforesaid innocuous prayer made by the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the respondents to consider and decide case of the petitioner in terms of Balo Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of the instant order shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order. All pending applications stand disposed of. January 6, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge