IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10590 of 2025 Decided on: 3rd July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raj Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 & 3, 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. Petitioner is serving as Piece Meal Worker/ Tyreman in the respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 09.11.2015. He seeks a direction to the respondents to consider his case for conversion of his services into contractual basis w.e.f. 09.11.2021, i.e. on completion of six years of continuous service. Petitioner has also prayed for direction to the respondents to regularize his such contractual service on completion of two years with all consequential benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner had preferred several representations to the respondents for redressal of his aforesaid grievances, more particularly, Annexure P-9 dated 26.04.2025 and Annexure P-10, however, the respondents have not considered his representations till date. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioner for the reliefs prayed for by him is squarely covered in terms of the decision rendered in Prem Singh Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another2. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are directed to decide his aforesaid representations within a fixed time 2 CWPOA No.1517 of 2019, decided on 18.12.2019 3 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 petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representations of the petitioner (Annexures P-9 and P-10) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Prem Singh2 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 July 03, 2025 Judge Mukesh