IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3197 of 2023 Date of Decision: 22.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Chamaru Ram …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocate vice Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and the respondent department may be directed to extend the benefit of regularization to the petitioner on the completion of 4 years of daily wage/contingent paid services with consequential benefits.” 2. Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioner, but before the issue raised in the instant petition could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while referring to judgment dated 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 27.02.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 7744 of 2024, titled Shiv Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others alongwith connected matters, states that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in the afore judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of afore judgment, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondents is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed therein vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that the issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and as such, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, if the respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light judgment (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant 3 order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order and in case, petitioner is found similarly situate to the petitioner in afore judgment, he shall also be granted similar benefits. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 22, 2025 (shankar)