IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3327 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar, Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to bring the service of the petitioner on contractual establishment against the post of Jal Rakshak/Pump Attendant immediately on completion of 12 years service w.e.f. 01.01.2024 alongwith all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears and monetary benefits, in the interest of justice and fair play. ii) That the respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation dated 20.01.2025, Annexure P-6, within time bound manner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) is considered and decided by the competent authority in a time bound manner. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer made in the instant petition and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, who while accepting notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that pending representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 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 with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representation dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner 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 hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order 3 thereupon taking note of Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by the Government. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 12, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)