IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2106 of 2025 Decided on: 25th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Madhu Bala and another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. The case set up is that petitioners were appointed as Lab Technicians under Red Cross Society, Kangra on 26.12.1999 and 30.10.2004, respectively. Their services were absorbed in Rogi Kalyan Samiti w.e.f. 01.08.2009. Since then, they have been working 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 continuously under Rogi Kalyan Samiti on contract basis. They have filed this writ petition seeking minimum time scale of pay for the post of Lab Technician/Assistant from the dates of their initial engagement with all consequential benefits. Further direction has been prayed for regularization of their services from the dates they completed 08 years of service with all incidental benefits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respective cases of the petitioners and the relief prayed for by them have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in Anant Ram & others Versus State of H.P. and others2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) preferred by the petitioners for claiming the above relief is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority(s) are 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 2 CWPOA No.1660 of 2020, decided on 15.06.2023 3 petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners dated 14.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Anant Ram2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua March 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh