IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.656 of 2025 Decided on: 9th January, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Safi Mohammad …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar and Ms. Shagun Sharma, Advocates. 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) That the respondents may kindly be directed to bring the service of the petitioner on contractual establishment against the post of pump attendant immediately on completion of 12 years services as pump attendant w.e.f. 01.01.2019 instead of 19.09.2022 and further the respondents may kindly be directed to give regularization to the petitioner immediately after completion of 3 years of contractual services i.e. w.e.f.01.01.2022 instead of 18.05.2023 in the time scale of pay from due date alongwith all 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears and monetary benefits, in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to, grant relaxation in educational qualification to the petitioner as has been done in the case of other similarly situated persons (i.e. Annexures P-4, P-5 and P-6).” 3. 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 redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. 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 January 09, 2025 Judge Mukesh