( 2025:HHC:29004 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.13724 of 2025 Decided on: 27th August, 2025 Babu Ram .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, A.G. with Mr.L.N. Sharma, Addl. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 and respondent No.5 respectively. 2. The instant petition has been filed for following substantive reliefs:- a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner after completion of 8 years of continuous service, as per the regularization policy of State of H.P. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:29004 ) 2 b) The Respondent state may be directed to regularize the services of the Petitioner as per the regularization policy of the state especially in view of the fact that similarly situated Rogi Kalyan Samiti (RKS) Employees have already been allowed the relief in view of Judgments of the Hon'ble High Court as rendered in CWP No. 1102 of 2011, Sanjay & Ors. V/s State of H.P. & Ors.CWP No.1119 of 2011, titled as Sanjay Rathour & Ors. V/s State of H.P. dated 28.05.2014, CWP No.7272 of 2011 dated 11.07.2014, titled as Neelam & Ors. V/S State of H.P. and CWPOA No.1660/2020, titled as Anant Ram & Ors. V/S State of H.P. & Ors. decided on 15.06.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue arising in the instant petition has already been settled by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 15.06.2023 passed in CWPOA No.1660 of 2020 titled as Anant Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. He submits that the petitioner has already made a representation to the competent authority and he will be satisfied, at this stage, in case the competent authority i.e. respondent No.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner in a time bound manner, in terms of judgment in Anant Ram (supra). 4. The prayer being innocuous is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner Annexure P-5 within a period ( 2025:HHC:29004 ) 3 of eight weeks from today by passing a detailed and reasoned order, strictly in terms of judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in CWPOA No.1660 of 2020 titled as Anant Ram and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Needless to say, in case the petitioner is found similarly situated to the petitioner in CWPOA No.1660 of 2020, he shall be given all the benefits as have been granted to the petitioner in CWPOA No.1660 of 2020 within a further period of four weeks. 5. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. August 27, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge