1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10999 of 2025 Date of decision: 11.07.2025 Dharam Singh. ...Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh&Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, AdditionalAdvocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: - “i) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the work charge status/regularization to petitioner immediately on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service with effect from due date, i.e., 01.01.2007 with 240 days in each calendar year, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, pay arrears, increments, seniority and other benefits etc.” -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition and the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner have already been considered and adjudicated upon in The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Surajmani & Anr.1 and Jogi Ram Vs. State of H.P. & Ors2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the representation dated 20.02.2025 (Annexure P-1) 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 is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. 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 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the case of Surajmani1and Jogi Ram2 within a period of six weeks from 1 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025, decided along with connected appeals on 06.02.2025 2 CWP No.7124 of 2021, decided on 25.02.2025. -3- today decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 11th July, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)