IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1139 of 2025 Date of Decision: 24.2.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Tilak Raj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “A) That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction be issued to respondents directing them to regularize the services of the petitioner on and w.e.f. 01.04.2018 when he completed three years’ service on contract basis, in terms of notification dated 11.05.2018 with all consequential benefits in view of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 342 of 2021 titled as Yaswant Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. B) That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction be issued to respondents to release all financial benefits such as pay, annual increment etc. w.e.f. 01.04.2018 after having regularized his services in terms of notification dated 11.05.2018 along with interest @ 9% P.A.” - 2 - 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that case of the petitioner is duly covered by the decision given by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.342 of 2021 titled Yashwant Singh and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. alongwith connected matters, decided on 31.8.2022, which has been further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He states that though petitioner herein is entitled to relief as granted in Yashwant Singh’s case (supra), but petitioner would be content and satisfied in case necessary directions are issued to respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in terms of afore judgment in a time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid judgment shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the fair stand taken by the learned Additional Advocate General, there appears to be no justification to call for reply and as such, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-2), expeditiously, preferably, within four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon. - 3 - 5. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. February 24, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge