IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3115 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.05.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Shiv 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. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main relief: “(i) That respondents may kindly be directed to adhere to Award Annexure P-1, whereby petitioner has been held to be entitled to seniority and continuity in service from 1.12.1996, Le. date of his verbal disengagement by further directing the respondents to regularize/charge the services of the petitioner to work on and with effect from 1.1.2004 with all the consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority along with interest @ p.a. and accordingly only fix pay of the petitioner after giving benefits of revision of pay scales from time to time and then to calculate the arrears and pay the same with interest." 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 he be permitted to file representation to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mг. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, made shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 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 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the competent authority within a period of one week for redressal of his grievance, which shall be decided by the competent authority taking note of the fact that award dated 18.06.2011, otherwise sought to be implemented, has attained finality because no appeal against the same has been filed in the competent Court of law, expeditiously. preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the 2 petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. thereafter. May 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3