IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3535 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Ram Bahadur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate. For the respondent: 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 reliefs: “(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the work charge status/regularization to petitioner immediately on completion of 8 years of daily wage service w.e.f. 01.01.2007 with 240 days in each calendar year, as per the regularization policy framed by the State Government prevalent at that relevant point of time and as per settled position of law, with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, increments, seniority and other benefits etc. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 11.11.2024, Annexure P-4, within time bound manner.” 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 his case is considered and decided in the light of judgment passed by Division Bench this Court in CWP No. 3111 of 2016 titled State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and representation, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, coupled with the fact that petitioner has already filed representation for redressal of his grievance (Annexure P-4), 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 case of the petitioner in light of judgment passed by this Court in Ashwani Kumar. (supra), 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 2 heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3