IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3253 of 2009. Decided on: 25.11.2010. Roshan Lal …..Petitioner. vs. State of H.P. & ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner: Ms.Rita Goswami, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral) The petitioner filed this writ petition with following prayers: “1. By quashing the impugned annexure P7 dated 12.03.09 vide which the service condition of the petitioner was changed by ignoring the CCS(Pension) Rules. 2. By directing the respondents to give the pension & pernsionery benefits from the due date with interest the rate of 18% pa till the date of actual payment after counting his daily wage service right from the year 1972, and service rendered by him in his previous dept. with effect from 02.01.1998 to 29.07.02 & fro m 01.08.02 to 31.03.09.” 2. The reply has been filed by the respondents in which they have pleaded that the petitioner was permanently absorbed on 11.6.2004 and at that time, the Scheme for Contributory pension had come into existence and the CCS (Pension) Rules were not applicable. 2 3. Without adverting to the merits of the case, it is clear that the petitioner filed representation to respondent No.3 on 24.7.2009 (Annexure P-9), dated 24.7.2009 and without waiting for respondent No.3 to decide the representation, the present petition was filed by the petitioner on 7.9.2009. No reasonable time was given to respondent No.3 to decide the representation. 4. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed to this extent that in the event of the petitioner making a fresh representation to respondent No.3, alongwith a copy of this order and the copy of the writ petition, within two weeks from today, respondent No.3 shall decide the said representation in accordance with law within a further period of four months from the date of the receipt of the representation from the petitioner. Respondent No.3 shall also consider the plea raised by the petitioner that similarly placed person, namely, Gurditu has been given pension and in case the petitioner is similarly placed, his case shall also be considered accordingly. 5. The petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. November 25, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.