IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10977 of 2025 Date of Decision: 09.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Babinder Kumar …….Petitioner Versus HRTC and Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation (Annexure P-6 Colly) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgments passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.1880 of 2011, titled Vinod Kumar Vs. HRTC and Another, decided on 07.03.2012 and CWP No.3356 of 2012, titled Bhupinder Pal Vs. HRTC and Another, decided on 10.05.2012, in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate, fairly states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the aforesaid judgments. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-6 Colly) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, shall also take note of the fact that other similarly situate persons, who had completed seven years of service, as detailed in Para 7 of the petition, wherein the services of incumbents have been taken on contract basis and later on have been regularized and for no cogent reason, petitioner has been left out. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 09, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)