IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3736/2025 Decided on: 18.03.2025 Satish Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Ms. Rinkle Khoond, Advocate, vice Mr. Balwant Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Leena Guleria, Deputy Advocate General . Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Notice. Ms. Leena Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “ (a) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the services of the petitioner since the initial date of appointment along with all consequential benefits as per the provisions of the "Himachal Pradesh Education Department Class-III (School an Inspection Cadre) Services Rules, 1973". (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to extend same and similar benefits to the petitioner as has been extended to the similarly situated persons in light of judgments of this Hon'ble court 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 in LPA No.54/2013 titled as State of H.P. versus Om Prakash, LPA No. 21/2013 titled as State of H.P. versus Ravinder Kumar and to the petitioners in the CWP No. 3144/2011 titled as Anju Devi versus State of H.P., CWP No.414/2014 titled as Kuldip Chand versus State of H.P, CWPOA No. 2782/2019 titled as Narender Singh Thakur versus State of H.P. & others.” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redresssal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring a representation within two weeks from today. In case, such representation is so preferred, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same, in accordance with law, within further period of six weeks. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 18th March, 2025(rohit)