IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8680 of 2025 Decided on: 26th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhagat Ram …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 reliefs:- “i. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to grant the work charge status or regularization to the petitioner after completion of 8 (eight) years of service with all consequential benefits with up-to-date interest, such as; pay-fixation, 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 seniority, arrears of pay, pension, promotion etc., in the interest of justice. ii. That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to rectify anomaly in the pay of petitioner and refix the salary of the petitioner at par with similar situated employees of the same department and pay the entire arrears of salary/ emoluments alongwith upto date interest.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him are squarely covered in terms of the decision rendered in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 20.04.2025 (Annexure P-7) preferred by the petitioner 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 Deputy Advocate General 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 with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 20.04.2025 2 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided alongwith connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 3 (Annexure P-7) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Surajmani2 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 May 26, 2025 Judge Mukesh