2025:HHC:6250 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10453 of 2023 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Hem Raj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajender Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: 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. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs: “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner from the year 2003 i.e. immediately after completion of his 8 years daily wage service with all consequential benefits within a time bound period, since the respondents have extended the benefit of regularisation to other similarly situated persons namely Krishan Lal @ Krishnu and Keshav Ram pursuant to the judgment dated 10.07.2020 and 01.07.2020 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CWPOA No. 348/2019 & CWPOA No. 352/2019, but in the case of the petitioner, the respondents have adopted different yardsticks and he has been extended the benefit of regularisation w.e.f. 24.09.2007, which is after the delay of 4 years.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case his case is considered and decided in the light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench this Court in CWPOA No. 348 of 2019 titled Krishan Lal @ Krishnu Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and in CWPOA No. 352 of 2019 titled Keshav Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-7), this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Krishan Lal and Keshav Ram (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing 2 the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3