2025:HHC:4541 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3017 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Proxy counsel for Mr. Satish Bhatia, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(i) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned acts and omissions of the respondents, whereby the regularization of the petitioner has been delayed unnecessarily and has been regularized on and w.e.f. 19.01.2022 instead from 28.12.2021 being patently illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides the same being in violation to the settled law of the land. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 28.12.2021 i.e. from the date the Regularization Policy was liberalized or from the date prior to 03.01.2022, along with all consequential benefits, including the benefit of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022 keeping in view the fact that the Petitioners have completed two years of contract service in the month of July, 2021, i.e. prior to 30.09.2021 as per the Regularization policy dated 28.12.2021. (iii) That an appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to the respondents directing them to grant/release the Higher Stage of Pay i.e. 30500/-to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7(A) of Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Revised pay) Rules, 2022, on completion of two years of regular service, along with all the consequential benefits.” 2. Before reply, if any, from the respondents could be received, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., wherein issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. 4. Having regard to the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported with an affidavit as well as relief prayed for vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court finds that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Mohit Sharma (supra) and as such, there appears to be no justification to call for the reply from the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional 2 Advocate General. While accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Advocate Advocate General, fairly states that representation (Annexure P-8) filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided in accordance with the law in a time bound manner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that petitioner herein is seeking higher stage of pay i.e. Rs. 30,5000/-, on completion of two years of regular service as Clerk in terms of judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 1638 of 2024 titled as Mohit Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Since issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands decided by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sharma (supra), this Court sees no impediment in issuing direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-8) . 6. 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 representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-8) in light of Mohit Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of 3 being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. March 04, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4