IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9786 of 2025 Decided on: 18th June, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kamal Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Mukul Sood, learned Standing Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 “A. That the court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus against the respondents, whereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner either on completion of 8 years of contractual service to the post of Peon or in terms of regularization policy dated 17.08.2012, i.e. on completion of 6 years of contractual service as the petitioner has completed 6 years of contractual service in the year 2010 itself. B. That the act and conduct of the respondents of regularizing the service of the petitioner in the year 2019 instead of regularizing him in the year 2012 may kindly be declared illegal, discriminatory and contrary to the regularization policy in vogue at the relevant point of time.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him is squarely covered in terms of the decision rendered in Rajesh Thakur Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/5) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. 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 counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ 2 CWPOA No.2853 of 2019, decided on 16.07.2021 3 petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure P/5) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Rajesh Thakur2 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