2025:HHC:9684 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP Nos.10825 to 10828 of 2023 Date of Decision: 08.04.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CWP No. 10825 of 2023 Raman Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents 2. CWP No. 10826 of 2023 Anita ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr . …....Respondents 3. CWP No. 10827 of 2023 Bimla Devi ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents 4. CWP No. 10828 of 2023 Bimla Brar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocate, in all the petitions. . For the respondent(s): Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State, in all the petitions. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petitions, petitioners have prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) That the respondents department may kindly be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner after completion of the 8 years, with all consequential benefits. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to release the arrears of salary etc. to the petitioner alongwith interest @9/%, in stipulated period.” 2. Though, by way of filing reply, respondents have refuted the claim of the petitioners as put-forth in the petitions, but before the case at hand could be heard and decided on their own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioners, while inviting attention of this Court to judgment dated 12.07.2019 passed by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 5379 of 2018 titled as Jaisi Ram Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Jaisi Ram Sharma (supra) as such, petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the representation(s) of the petitioners in light of aforesaid judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioners shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 2 4. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the cases, deems it fit to dispose of the present petitions, reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation(s) before the competent authority within a period of three weeks for redressal of their grievances as have been raised in the instant petitions, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgment. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass speaking order thereafter. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. April 08, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3