IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3502 of 2025 Decided on: 25th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bacchan Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Jiwan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hitender Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Rangil Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rangil Singh, learned counsel, appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.4, respectively. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(a) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents to offer regular appointment to the petitioner as Driver with effect from 16/01/1999, alongwith all consequential benefits of seniority, pay fixation, ACPS etc. (b) That the respondents may be directed to assign seniority to the petitioner in the cadre of drivers in the establishment of respondent No.2 from 16/01/1999 and issue a fresh seniority list of Drivers.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred a representation to respondent No.1 on 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) for claiming the above reliefs. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent No.1/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 21.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) in accordance with law within a period of 3 six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh