IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5994 of 2024 Decided on: 9th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ramesh Chand. …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 4-State. Ms. Himani Verma, Advocate, vice Ms. Kiran Dhiman, for respondents No.2 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Reply has not been filed by respondents No.1 and 4. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued to the respondents to grant work charge status to the petitioner after the completion of 8 years of service w.e.f. 1-1-2004 as per the law laid down by this 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 Hon'ble court in CWP 2735/10 titled as Rakesh Kumar V/S State of H.P. and others, as well as in LPA 165/202'1 titled as State of HP & others vs Surajmani & another with all the consequential benefits thereof such as arrears of salary, pay fixation etc in the interest of justice. ii. That the respondents may be directed to grant seniority and consequential benefits from back date.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in LPA No.165 of 2021 (State of H.P. and others Versus Surajmani and another), decided alongwith connected matters on 12.01.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a representation preferred by the petitioner on 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 & 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 are not averse to this prayer. 5. In view of the above submissions, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to consider and decide the 3 aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Surajmani, supra, within a period of four 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 9th May, 2025 Judge Pardeep