IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8964/2025 Decided on: 29.05.2025 Guru Dev …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rajat Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts 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 his Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 direction, to convert the services of petitioners from part time to daily wager, in terms of policy dated 07.05.2025 i.e. Annexure P-3 with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to fix the salary/allowance of the petitioner as per daily wage status. (iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to protect the seniority of the petitioner from the due date, for the purpose of further regularization. (iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant and release the actual monetary benefits to the petitioner, along with 12% interest, in a time bound manner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has preferred a representation on 30.03.2025 (Annexure P- 4) to respondent No.4/competent authority, however, no concrete action on his representation has been taken till date. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner would be content in case, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh representation to respondent No.4/competent authority, whereafter, the said respondent/competent authority, be directed to decide the representation to be made by him, in a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.4/competent authority, within a period of two weeks from today, who shall in turn, consider and decide the same, in accordance with 3 law, within a further period of six weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 29, 2025(rohit)