IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6811 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.4.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Inder Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Parmar and Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent department grant the appointment to the petitioner on regular basis from the initial date of appointment i.e. in year 2002. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in manner of the law settled in CWP No. 4299 of 2019 titled as Pushpa Devi vs. Himachal Pradesh University., in CWP No. 5090 of 2022 titled as Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. and in CWPOA NO. 1077 of 2019 titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.” - 2 - 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4299 of 2019 titled as Pushpa Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh University., in CWP No. 5090 of 2022 titled as Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019 titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi, Umesh Jaswal and Nitin Kumar (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-4), 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 - 3 - judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi, Umesh Jaswal and Nitin Kumar (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 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge