IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14909 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.7.2025 _______________________________________________________ Mukesh Kumar Walia …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Karan Singh Parma and Ms. Rashmi Parmar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “I)That the respondents may very kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner as a JOI(IT) on regular basis w.e.f. 14th January, 2019 i.e. from there initial date of appointment with all consequential benefits. II. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to pay the allowances to the petitioner at par with the regular employee from the initial date of appointment w.e.f. 4th January, 2019.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this Court to judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 this Court in CWP No. 4299 of 2019 titled as Pushpa Devi Vs. Himachal Pradesh University., in CWP No. 5090 of 2022 titled as Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and in CWPOA No. 1077 of 2019 titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., states that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi, Umesh Jaswal and Nitin Kumar (supra) and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to make representation to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance, with the direction to the respondents to decide the same 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 petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by the affidavits vis-à-vis judgments sought to be relied upon, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel representing the parties that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated in afore cases, which otherwise stands implemented, as is evident from order dated 08.01.2025 passed by Director 3 Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh. If it is so, there is otherwise no impediment in accepting the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner to issue direction to the respondents to consider and decide his representation in time bound manner. 5. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the competent authority within a period of ten days, praying therein for consideration of his case in light of judgments passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Pushpa Devi, Umesh Jaswal and Nitin Kumar (supra) which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of four weeks. 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 petitioner and pass speaking order. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 16, 2025 manjit