IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2631 of 2025 Date of Decision: 28.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ashwani Kumar Guleria ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. C.N.Singh, Mr. Devender Sharma & Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:- “(i) Issue a writ of Certiorari, Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent department to regularize the contractual service of the petitioner (Political Science) after completion of eight years of contractual service w.e.f. 01.10.2006 with all consequential benefits. (ii) Consequently Issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to respondents to accordingly re-fix the pay etc of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and release the same in favour of the petitioner along with 12% interest..” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue raised in the present petition is squarely covered by order/judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1853 of 2009- D, titled as “Arpana Bali vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others”, decided on 10th April, 2013 and his client shall be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of Arpana Bali (supra), in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. 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-9), 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 representation of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Arpana Bali (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended 2 similar benefits. 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 thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 28, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3