IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4815 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vivek Sharma …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “I. The respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the services of petitioner after completion of one year with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation and arrears etc in view of R&P rules/policy applicable at the time of their appointments. II. That petitioner may kindly be granted same treatment which has given to petitioners of CWPOA 2343/2020 along with all consequential benefits.” 2. Before reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) is 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh Vs. HRTC, along with connected matters, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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 a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 26.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands 3 adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 03, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)