IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3190 of 2025 Date of decision: 07.01.2025 Pawan Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard today. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i. That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondents to grant the work charge status/regularization to petitioner immediately on completion of 8 years of continuous daily wage service with effect from due date, i.e., 01.01.2011 instead of 02.06.2017, with 240 days in each calendar year, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, pay arrears, increments, seniority and other benefits etc. ii. That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 13.09.2024, Annexure P- 4, within time bound manner. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes -2- 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him has already been considered & adjudicated upon in State of H.P. & Ors. vs. Surajmani & Anr.1 and Jogi Ram vs. State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the representation dated 13.09.2024 (Annexure P-4) preferred by the petitioner, for claiming the above reliefs is pending consideration with the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents/competent authority is directed to decide the aforesaid representation within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgments in the case of Surajmani1 and Jogi Ram2 within a period of six weeks from today. The 1Civil Appeal No.1595 of 2025 decided along with connected civil appeals on 06.02.2025. 2CWP No.7124 of 2021 decided on 25.02.2025. -3- decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 7th March, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)