1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7014 of 2025 Date of decision: 30.04.2025 Bhim Sain. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Ms. Kanta Thakur, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for disposal at this stage. 2. Petitioner’s grievance is to the office order dated 24.12.2024 that denies him applicability of benefits of decisions rendered in Sunder Singh vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.1 and Balo Devi & Ors. vs. 1 Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2017 decided on 08.03.2018. -2- State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2 on the count that the benefits of the aforesaid decision are appliable only to those Class-IV employees who were recruited initially on daily wage basis and whose services were regularized thereafter pursuant to the decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhaya vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3. That the services of the petitioners were regularized as per policy of the State Government and not in terms of decision rendered in Mool Raj Upadhaya’s3 case. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has preferred this writ petition assailing the aforesaid office order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-7) and inter alia, seeking directions to the respondent to count the services rendered by the petitioner on daily wage basis in terms of decision in Sunder Singh1 and Balo Devi2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the writ petition and the relief prayed for by the petitioner is covered by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ratnesh Paul vs. State of H.P. & Ors.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case he is permitted to file a 2 Civil Appeal No.4792 of 2022 decided on 18.07.2022. 3 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 316 4CWP No.5290 of 2024 decided on 25.04.2025. -3- representation, whereafter, the competent authority may be directed to consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a time-bound schedule. 4. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law notwithstanding office order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-7) for grant benefit claimed by him in light of decision rendered in Ratnesh Paul4 and pass accordingly appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks from today. Copy of order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, to also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 30th April, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)