2025:HHC:3531 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.16149 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rinku Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Harmender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “1. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to convert the services of the petitioner on contractual basis against the post of pump attendant with effect from due date, i.e., 01.04.2020, instead of 22.10.2020, in the time scale of pay, with all consequential benefits. 2. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to convert the services of the petitioners on regular basis after completion of 2 years of contractual services, w.e.f. due date, i.e., 01.04.2022, instead of 08.06.2023, with all consequential benefits, i.e., seniority, arrear and monetary benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be filed on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while 2025:HHC:3531 2 inviting attention of this Court to representation dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) states that petitioner has already filed representation to consider his case in light of judgment dated 23.06.2021, passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as Jagdish Kumar and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP No.3047 of 2020, which has attained finality and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction is issued to respondents to decide the pending representation dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner as well as order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that pending representation, if not decided already, shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law. 4. Having perused averments contained in the petition as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, coupled with the fair statement given by learned Additional Advocate General, named hereinabove, this Court finds that issue sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in Jagdish Kumar (supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties, if a direction is issued to the 2025:HHC:3531 3 respondents to consider and decide representation dated 14.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) in terms of Jagdish Kumar (supra). 5. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to decide the pending representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four weeks, in light of Jagdish Kumar (supra). Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. February 25, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Rajeev Raturi Judge