2025:HHC:9958 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5497 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Leela Vilas ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Inderjit Singh Narwal & Mr. Bhishm Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent corporation to regularize services of the petitioners from their initial date of appointment and treat petitioner as appointee on regular appointee with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. (ii) That or in alternative, the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners immediately after one year, by modifying regularization order Annexure P-2, with all consequential benefits in view of judgment by this Hon'ble Court in case CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020 titled as Vikram Singh & otheres versus HRTC. (iii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondent corporation to decide the representation Annexure P-4, within time bound manner. in the interest of justice.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 2343 of 2020 titled Vikram Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. 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 case of the petitioner in light of Vikram Singh (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 09, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2