2025:HHC:6845 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3859 of 2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Megh Singh ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K.Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: 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 relief: “(i) That the respondents may be ordered to regularize services of the petitioner from the date he completed 10 years service, as has been done in the case of Smt. Kanta Devi, with all benefits incidental thereof.” 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in a case with identical facts in CWPOA No. 6929 of 2020 titled as Kanta Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, directions were issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in the light of judgments passed in CWP No. 2804 of 2012 titled as Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., and CWP No 11506 of 2011 titled as Laxmi Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. He further contends that respondents, in compliance to the afore orders, have passed a consideration order dated 13.09.2024, thereby acceding to the prayer made by the petitioner in afore cases. 3. Having perused order dated 13.09.024 passed by the Director Ayush, Himachal Pradesh, in the case of Smt. Kanta Devi i.e. petitioner in CWP No. 6929 of 2020, afore submission made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be correct. 4. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, states that representation, if any, filed by the petitioner to consider his case in light of aforesaid judgments shall be considered expeditiously. Since careful perusal of averments contained in the petition, which are dully supported by an affidavit as well as documents annexed therewith vis- a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, reveals that issue raised in the instant petition already stands adjudicated, there appears to be no justification to call for the reply on behalf of respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General. 3. 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 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the 2 competent authority within a period of two weeks for redressal of his grievances as have been raised in the instant petition, which in turn, shall be decided by the competent authority in the light of judgments detailed hereinabove, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six weeks in light of aforesaid judgments. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and pass appropriate order thereafter. March 20, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 3