IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2719 of 2024 Date of Decision: 10.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Dhian Singh & others …….Petitioners Versus Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “ (i) The respondent may kindly be directed to regularize the services of petitioners after completion of one year with all consequential benefits like seniority, pay fixation and arrears etc in view of R&P rules/policy applicable at the time of their appointments; (ii). That petitioners may kindly be granted same treatment which has given to petitioners of CWPOA No.2343 of 2020 alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that his clients would be content and satisfied in 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioner in light of judgment dated 09.11.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-8) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of eight weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh’s case (supra), wherein issue otherwise 3 sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 10,2025 (shankar)