IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16384 of 2025 Decided on: 16th October, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kuldeep 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. Pranav Kaushal, Advocate vice Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from the date he completed two years of contractual service i.e. 13.10.2022 in terms of the policy dated 28.12.2021 as per the judgment dated 22.09.2025 ( Annexure P-1). ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner with effect from the date he completed two years of contractual service i.e. 13.10.2022 in terms of the policy dated 28.12.2021. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 iv) That the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the arrears, seniority and other consequential benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.10.2022 as per various judgments passed by this Hon’ble High Court. v) That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the contract service rendered by the petitioner for all the benefits as per various judgments passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised by the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him have already been adjudicated upon in Uttam Ram & others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others2. The writ record does not reflect any representation having been preferred by the petitioner to the respondents for the redressal of his grievances in light of Uttam Ram2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied in case he is permitted to make a representation to the respondents for the redressal of grievances raised in this writ petition and the same is directed to be decided by the competent authority within a time bound manner. Learned Additional Advocate General has not objection to this prayer. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today for the redressal of his grievances, who 2 CWP No.5267 of 2025, decided on 22.09.2025 3 shall, in turn, consider and decide the same in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in Uttam Ram2, within a further period of four weeks. The order so passed 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 October 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh