IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2344 of 2025 Date of decision: 26.03.2025 Keshav Ram. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. P.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s):- “(a) To issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondent department to treat the petitioner as having been appointed in the year 2002 with all consequential benefits for all purpose and interests.” 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that his case is covered by Milat Ram & Ors. vs. State of H.P. & Ors.1 1CWPOA No.6850 of 2020 decided on 10.05.2023. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Milat Ram1, within further period of six 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 26th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep) -3- in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the case of Surajmani1 and Jogi Ram2 within a period of six weeks from today. -4- Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six 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 26th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep) in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the case of Surajmani1 and Jogi Ram2 within a period of six weeks from today.