2025:HHC:4189 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2899 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Sunder Mohan …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur and Ms. Nargis Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(a). That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent-Corporation to regularize services of the petitioner from his initial date of appointment and treat petitioner as appointee on regular appointee with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice. (ii). That or in alterative, the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioners immediately after one year, by modifying regularization order Annexure P-2, with all consequential benefits in view of judgment by this Hon’ble Court in case CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others.” 2. Before the reply could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:4189 states that his client would be content and satisfied in case he is permitted to file representation with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in light of judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2343 of 2024, titled as Vikram Singh versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation, in a time bound manner. Learned counsel representing the respondents states that representation, if any, shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. Consequently, in view of the fair stand adopted by learned counsel for the respondents, coupled with the fact that issue sought to be raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh’s case(supra), there appears to be no impediment in accepting the afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and accordingly the present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority within a period of four weeks, in accordance with law. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereupon, taking note of the mandate contained in the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Vikram Singh’s case (supra). Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 03,2025 (shankar)