IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4390 of 2025 Decided on: 9th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Inder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vasu Sood, 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. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant work charge status to the petitioner, in the light of judgment passed in LPA No.48/2022, titled as State of H.P. and Anr. Vs. Bhupeshwar Dutt (Annexure P-3) as also judgment in 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 case titled as Rajinder Singh Vs. State of H.P. and Anr. dated 26.06.2004 (Annexure P-3 Colly.). ii. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits, as have been given to the similarly situated persons from the due date till the date of actual payment.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him have already been considered & adjudicated upon by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh and another Vs. Bhupeshwar Dutt2. Learned counsel also submits that the representation dated 28.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) preferred by the petitioner for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case respondent No.2/competent authority is 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 petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 28.12.2024 (Annexure P-4) in accordance with law as well as taking 2 LPA No.48 of 2022, decided on 22.06.2023 3 into consideration the above judgment in the case of Bhupeshwar Dutt2 within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at 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 May 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh