IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11016 of 2025 Decided on: 11th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ashwani Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Choudhry, learned Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 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:- “i. That the respondents may kindly be directed to make an order of regularization in service of the petitioners against the apposite substantive post, along with all 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 incidental there to benefits as given to similarly situated incumbents who have approached the Hon’ble Court earlier by way of CWP No.244/2019 titled as State of HP & ors VS Narender Kumar. ii. That the action of the respondents in denying the consideration and the resultant regularization to the petitioner as Lab Attendant or any other equivalent post despite being eligible; despite the availability of vacant posts of Lab Attendants and in discriminatory manner when similar daily wagers were regularized in the past in respondent department and in other departments may kindly be held illegal, discriminatory and unsustainable.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation to respondent No.2 (Annexure P-5) for claiming the above reliefs. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Assistant 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 petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-5) in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh