IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5342 of 2024 Decided on: 1st March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramesh Chand …..Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University .....Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mandeep Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocate vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondent has not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the adhoc/daily wage period of service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of pension, seniority, annual increments, bunching and stagnation scale w.e.f. due date with all consequential benefits as per the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment dated 08- 03-2018 passed in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 titled as Sunder Singh VS State of Himachal Pradesh & others and law laid down by this Hon’ble High Court 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 vide judgment dated 30-12-2022 passed in CWPOA No.7531 of 2019 titled as Madan Lal and others Vs State of Himachal Pradesh.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the relief prayed for by him have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Sunder Singh Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 and Paras Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case he is permitted to prefer a comprehensive representation to the respondent within a period of two weeks and thereafter the competent authority be directed to decide the said representation within a time bound schedule. Learned vice counsel appearing for the respondent is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file a comprehensive representation to the respondent/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today. In case such a representation is received by the respondent/ competent authority within the aforesaid period, the same 2 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017, decided on 08.03.2018 3 LHLJ 2009 (2) 887 3 shall be considered and decided in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Sunder Singh2 and Paras Ram3 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 01, 2025 Judge Mukesh