IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9756 of 2025 Decided on: 18th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maninder Singh Bagga …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajendera Gulati, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Susheel Gautam, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Susheel Gautam, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondents No.3 & 4, respectively. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to regularize the contractual services of the Petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator in the Department of Forest (i.e. Respondent No.1 to 3) after completion of Six Years of contractual service i.e. w.e.f. 06.03.2015 in terms of the regularization policy framed by the respondent department (Annexure P-5) with all consequential benefits. b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to re-fix the pay of the Petitioner and pay the entire consequential benefits in favour of the Petitioner with in time bound manner along with 12% interest. c) Or in Alternative issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, by directing the respondents to pay the equal pay and perks to Petitioner from the initial date of his appointment or after completion of Two years of contractual service as paid to regular employees of the government department in terms of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India with all consequential benefits.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation to the respondents (Annexure P-3) for claiming the above reliefs. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ 3 petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law 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 June 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh