IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9086/2023 Decided on: 13.03.2025 Khub Ram …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram The Hon’ble Ms Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Shilpa and Ms. Heena Bhardwaj, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J The case set up by the petitioner is that:- (i) He was engaged as daily rated worker in the respondent-forest department in the year 2008; He continued to discharge his duties as such. (ii) A meeting of Departmental Screening Committee of the respondents was convened on 10.12.2021, in which name of the petitioner was considered for regularization of his service. (iii) The Departmental Screening Committee did not recommend petitioner’s name for regularization, hence this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, he is eligible for regularization with effect from the due date i.e. on completion of requisite number of years of service as per applicable Policy of the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the posts are lying vacant and the petitioner is required to be regularized against this vacant posts. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue raised in the petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Shiv Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner would be content, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in light of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, in a time bound manner. Prayer is not opposed by learned Deputy Advocate General. 3. In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, but without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner, in accordance with law and in light of the aforesaid judgment within a period of six weeks by passing a reasoned order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 13th March, 2025(rohit) 2CWP No. 7744/2024 alongwith connected matters decided on 27.02.2025