IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1533 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ashish Kumar …….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. Kush Sharma and Ms. Shreya Chauhan, 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 relief:- “A. That the entire service period rendered on daily wage basis till his regularization may be treated as on regular basis or the service period from w.e.f. 04.07.2015 to 04.07.2018 on contract basis followed by his regularisation from due date for all intent and purposes and with all consequential benefits and further to pay all the arrears consequent upon such regularization of service with seniority. B. To issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to count the entire service period of petitioner from the date of initial appointment w.e.f. 04.07.2015 towards seniority, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 pension, promotion and for all intent and purposes with all consequential benefits.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) is considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2004 of 2017 titled as Taj Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, 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 pending representation dated 01.10.2024 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while 3 doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Taj Mohammad case (supra), wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 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. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)