IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.8888 of 2024 Decided on: 21st May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Ram Kali ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Though the respondents have not filed reply to the writ petition, however with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for disposal at this state. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the work charge status/regularization to the petitioner w.e.f. 1.1.2002 instead of 13.08.2014 alongwith all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 fair play. (ii) That the petitioner may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of work charge status/regularization in light of law laid down in CWP No. 2735/2010 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by her has already been considered & adjudicated upon in State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani & Anr.2 and Jogi Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3. Learned counsel further submits that the representation dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) preferred by the petitioner, for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel also 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 counsel appearing for the respondents 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 2 Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 decided along with connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025 3 CWP No.7124 of 2021 decided on 25.02.2025. 3 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 Surajmani2 and Jogi Ram3 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 20, 2025 (R. Atal)