( 2025:HHC:35625 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16744/2025 Decided on: 28.10.2025 Sharti Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others .…Respondents ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. J.D.Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. L.N.Sharma, Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocates General, Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Notice. Mr. L.N.Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Considering the case projected by the petitioner, the relief claimed by him and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply to this writ petition is not required to be called from the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:35625 ) 3. The petitioner had instituted Sharti Sharma versus State of H.P and others,2 seeking retrospective regularization on the strength of State of H.P and another versus Surajmani and others,3 The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Surajmani3. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed an office order on 12.09.2025 holding the petitioner entitled to grant of work charge status w.e.f. 01.01.2001 as Surveyor on completion of eight years of service in view of Surajmani3. The conferment of work charge status upon the petitioner was to be on notional basis. It has been submitted for the petitioner that consequent thereto, the respondents passed another office order on 16.10.2025 re-fixing the petitioner’s pay. The petitioner is currently serving as Assistant Engineer (Civil). His present grievance is that even though the respondents have conferred upon him work charge status on notional basis w.e.f. 01.01.2001 as Surveyor, however, his seniority on that basis has not been revised, consequently, he is suffering in matter of further promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. It is the case of the petitioner that he has preferred a comprehensive representation in this regard dated 23.09.2025 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.1, however, till date, no decision thereupon has been 2 CWPOA No.6150 of 2019 decided on 07.08.2025. 3 Civil Appeal No. 1595 of 2025 decided on 06.02.2025. 3 ( 2025:HHC:35625 ) taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, respondents/competent authority are directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. In view of the above, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-7) keeping in view the office order dated 12.09.2025 and its impact upon the petitioner’s seniority and promotion, if any. The decision in accordance with law be taken within a period of six weeks. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 28th October, 2025 (yogesh)