IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8996/2025 Decided on: 30.05.2025 Abhinay Bhaita …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhary, learned Assistant Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That a writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent department to regularize the services of the petitioner immediately after issuance of the instructions dated 28.12.2021 of from any date prior to 03.01.2022 and accordingly issue necessary regularization orders thereof in supersession of earlier orders dated 15.04.2022, which had been issued under the subsequent instructions dated 28.03.2022, being illegal and arbitrary. (b) That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued to the respondents, in consequence of granting relief (A) supra, to grant higher pay scale of Rs. 30,500/- after completing 2 years of regular service. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE Consider the appointment of the petitioner on contract basis as "appointed prior to 3rd January, 2022" and in consequence thereof grant him higher pay scale of Rs. 30,500/- on completion of 2 years of regular service. That an appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the entire accrued amount following fixation of pay of the petitioner at Rs. 30,500/- on completion of 2 years of regular service as Clerk from due date till its actual payment to the petitioner.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a 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 six 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 30th May, 2025(rohit)