IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7340/2025 Decided on:05.05.2025 Ravinder Kumar …Petitioner Versus HPSEB & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pawan Chauhan, Advocate vice Mr. Vandna Mishra, for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Pawan Chauhan and Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocates, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (a) To issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 as interpreted by the Hon'ble High Court in CWPOA 1077/2019 titled as Nitin Kumar Versus state and also CWP 5090/022 titled as Umesh Jaswal versus state of HP whereby it has been reiterated that Differently abled employees 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 cannot be construed to have been appointed as on daily wage or on contractual basis but on regular basis from day one of appointment and the entire service is to be reckoned as regular service. (b) That the period of the Petitioner from 1985 to 2002 may be allowed to be considered as on regular basis for all service benefits including Pensionary Benefits. The Pensionary Benefits and other service benefits may also be revised as such.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring representations to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievance raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring his representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of four weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 05th May, 2025(rohit)