2025:HHC:11141 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6299 of 2025 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gopal Lal ……...Petitioner Versus HRTC & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, 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 regularize services of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment and treat petitioner as 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 versus CWPOA and others.” 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. Raman Jamalta, 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 from today. 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 appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2