IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10246 of 2023 Decided on: 25th April, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prem Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have 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 reliefs:- “(i) That writ of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned office order dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure-C). (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant work charge status/ regularization to the petitioner against the post of Forest Worker from the due date, since the petitioner is working in the respondent department from last 31 years on muster roll basis for 18 years and on bill basis for 13 years and other similarly situated persons who 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 were also on the same footing, their services have been regularized in the year 2020 and the petitioner has been deprived from the benefit of work charge status/ regularization without any justification. (iii) That the action of the respondent department, whereby they have changed the service condition of the petitioner without his consent in the year 2010 may kindly be quashed and set aside, since the petitioner has worked as daily wage Forest Worker w.e.f. 1991 till 2009, but the respondent department has wrongly shown him w.e.f. 2010 on bill basis. (iv) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to pay the salary of the petitioner within a time bound manner, since the same has not been paid from the last one year. (v) That the respondent department has given fictional breaks to the petitioner time and again with malafide intention just to deprive the petitioner from getting his service benefits in terms of regularisation policy and same may kindly be condoned.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Pyare Lal Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2, Neter Singh Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3, Shiv Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4 and Khub Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.5. It is seen from the record that petitioner has directly moved this writ petition without making any representation on the issue to his employer. At this stage, learned counsel submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, he is permitted to file a representation to respondent No.2/ competent authority, whereafter the said respondent be directed to consider and decide the representation of the 2 CWP No.1529/2020, decided on 08.08.2023 3 CWP No.9085/2023, decided on 21.11.2024 4 CWP No.774/2024, decided alongwith connected matter on 27.02.2025 5 CWP No.9086/2023, decided on 13.03.2025 3 petitioner within a time bound schedule and in accordance with the aforesaid judgments. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the instant writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same in accordance with law and keeping in view the aforesaid judgments, within a further period of six weeks. The order so passed be also 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 April 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh